ABRWH_DowTr5.4.07_pp11-124.doc 

Excerpt from the 46th ABRWH meeting, Denver, CO, May 2-4, 2007.
 

The transcript pages 11 through 124 are devoted to the “DOW SEC
 

PETITION” discussion:
 

STUART HINNEFELD (NIOSH) PAGES 11 THROUGH 29
 

p. 11
 

1 or in fact, those at the table -- so let me
 

2 know. Thank you.
 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Question --

4 DR. WADE: He's going to tell us.
 

==========================================================
 

DOW SEC PETITION
 

MR. STU HINNEFELD, NIOSH, OCAS
 

PETITIONER
 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll do that off-line.
 

6 Okay, let's begin then with the Dow SEC
 

7 petition. We'll begin with the NIOSH petition
 

8 evaluation, and Stu Hinnefeld at NIOSH is going
 

9 to make that presentation.
 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. My
 

11 name's Stu Hinnefeld. I'm the technical
 

12 program manager for OCAS in the program. I'm
 

13 presenting the petition evaluation report and
 

14 some updated information, since the petition
 

15 evaluation report was prepared, today -- I
 

16 think probably because I let LaVon Rutherford
 

17 go on vacation right before this was due, so I
 

18 think that's why I'm up here.
 

19 This is a -- an 83.14 petition. This is a site
 

20 where we determined there was some aspect of
 

21 the radiation dose that we did not have
 

22 sufficient information to reconstruct and so we
 

23 proceeded along the pathway of 83.14 SEC
 

24 evaluation.
 

P. 12
 

1 So some of the slides your normally see, like
 

2 the two-pronged test, I've taken out of this
 

3 for brevity because there's some addi-- because
 

4 of the update information I put in here. Well,
 

5 I'm sorry, there is the two-pronged test that
 

6 you've all seen before: Is it feasible to
 

7 estimate radiation doses of individual members
 

8 of the class. And if that is -- the answer to
 

9 that is no, is there a reasonable likelihood
 

10 that such radiation dose may have endangered
 
11 the health of members of the class. So those
 

12 are the -- that's the test we evaluate when we
 

13 do one of these 83.14 petitions.
 

14 This is about the Dow Chemic-- a site that was
 

15 operated by Dow Chemical Company in Madison,
 

16 Illinois. That's the site we're talking about
 

17 now. This site is in Madison, Illinois. This
 

18 site extruded uranium metal on a handful of
 

19 occasions for the Atomic Energy Commission
 

20 under a subcontract from Mallinckrodt Chemical
 

21 Works, which was the operator of the
 

22 Mallinckrodt St. Louis site and the Weldon
 

23 Spring site, and they also straightened uranium
 

24 metal rods under a -- this was under a purchase
 

25 order agreement to Mallinckrodt for a couple of
 

P. 13
 

1 -- a couple of -- on a couple of different
 

2 occasions.
 

3 Now they also routinely handled thorium at this
 

4 -- at this plant, and routinely incorporated it
 

5 into their commercial metal al-- metal alloys
 

6 plant. This was a -- a metal production plant,
 

7 made magnesium and I believe some aluminum
 

8 alloys, and -- and that was their main line of
 

9 business. The -- the uranium work was just
 

10 kind of something that they did -- they had a
 

11 big extrusion press and the AEC was trying to -

12 - they were studying the characteristics of
 

13 what -- what works best when you're extruding
 

14 uranium.
 

15 I -- I -- now to get into this a little bit, I
 

16 need to talk a little bit about dose that is
 

17 included under EEOICPA for AWE facilities. And
 

18 the original EEOICPA legislation was amended by
 

19 the 2005 Defense Authorization Act in two ways
 

20 that affect this question, you know, what dose
 

21 is included. The -- the first aspect amendment
 

22 or first amendment that affects this is that it
 

23 added a second category to the definition of an
 

24 AWE employee. Up until this amendment, only
 

25 employees who worked during the contract period
 

P. 14
 

1 at an AWE were considered AWE employees and
 

2 therefore could submit a claim under the law.
 

3 This amendment amended that language and added
 

4 -- by adding a second category of employee and
 
5 saying that the second category of employee is
 

6 a cate-- is a person who worked at an AWE site
 

7 after the contract period but during a time
 

8 when there was residual contamination from the
 

9 contract period present during that time. So
 

10 that's a second category and they're identified
 

11 in the statute as subparagraph (a) and
 

12 subparagraph (b) under one of the paragraphs.
 

13 And the second amendment that occurred to
 

14 EEOICPA by this Defense Authorization Act was
 

15 that they provided a definition of radiation
 

16 dose for the added category, interestingly
 

17 enough. The definition of radiation dose --

18 this is for the purposes of such-and-such
 

19 paragraph part (b), not such-and-such
 

20 paragraph. Such-and-such paragraph part (b)
 

21 radiation dose was defined, and this was the
 

22 definition. I don't think I'll read it word23
 

for-word, it's on the slides and the handouts
 

24 to the slides, but it's essentially dose
 

25 received from work done by -- for AEC to
 

P. 15
 

1. produce, process, store, remediate or dispose
 

2 of radioactive waste that was, you know, and
 

3 for -- for the transportation and testing of
 

4 nuclear weapons. So that was the work that --

5 this was part of the radiation dose.
 

6 And then the second part of the radiation dose
 

7 definition is if there's dose that's not
 

8 distinguishable through reliable documentation
 

9 from the doses noted above. So in other words,
 

10 if there -- if the pers-- if an employee at a
 

11 site fo-- in the residual period, remember
 

12 that's the category of employee we're talking
 

13 about, is -- if the residual radiation at that
 

14 site can be distinguished from contamination
 

15 that would have occurred from the AEC work,
 

16 then that residual dose is not part of the
 

17 radiation dose assigned to these workers. So
 

18 what the -- the outcome of this -- and there is
 

19 -- oh, by -- and that's the final point of
 

20 this. There is no similar limitation or
 

21 definition of radiation dose on the original
 

22 category of AWE employee, so -- so you don't
 

23 have that limitation, that definition, and the
 

24 -- and the statute I think at some point
 

25 originally said reconstruct all doses at the
 
P. 16
 

1. site.
 

2 So during the covered period, the contract
 

3 period, all doses have to be reconstructed for
 

4 an AWE employee. After the contract period, if
 

5 there's a residual contamination period, the
 

6 dose that's included under EEOICPA is dose from
 

7 residual contamination from the AEC work --

8 okay -- not from the commercial work.
 

9 Now, summary of the information available for
 

10 dose reconstruction -- and one other thing to
 

11 remember on this, the thorium was used in the
 

12 commercial operations at -- at Madison, and the
 

13 uranium apparently was the AEC work. We know
 

14 that they did uranium work for the AEC. We
 

15 didn't have any individual monitoring, external
 

16 monitoring results. We don't have any bioassay
 

17 results, either in vitro or in vivo, for any of
 

18 the employees at that -- you know, actually at
 

19 this point for any employees at any time.
 

20 In 1957 we have the copy of the contract that
 

21 calls for 12 extrusion cycles, each one
 

22 estimates there's going to be like essentially
 

23 28 hours of work with an extrusion cycle. They
 

24 were going to set up for six hours; run what
 

25 they called testing, which was the extrusion,
 

P. 17
 

1 for 16 hours; and then clean up for six hours.
 

2 So that was the estimate of how much time was
 

3 going to be spent on each cycle, and the
 

4 contract called for 12 cycles.
 

5 We have documents from FUSRAP that describe two
 

6 rod-straightening campaigns. We've also
 

7 recently -- or at least we -- we know we now
 

8 have the purchase orders from Mallinckrodt for
 

9 the two uranium-straightening cam-- campaigns.
 

10 And we had a 1957 paper by the Dow radiation
 

11 safety officer who worked from Dow headquarters
 

12 -- he didn't work at the Madison site, he
 

13 worked from Dow headquarters -- that describe
 

14 the use of thorium, and it contains about 20
 

15 air sample results -- at the time we thought
 

16 from a single sampling (sic) campaign -- and a
 

17 handful of radiation surveys.
 

18 We also had a 1960 AEC inspection report that
 

19 refers to the 1957 air monitoring results. In
 
20 other words, it -- it kind of presented this --

21 the air -- you know, the air quality is okay
 

22 because we have these 1957 results. Even
 

23 though it referred to them as recent air
 

24 sampling results, it actually -- the collection
 

25 had been '57 and even '56 when those were
 

P. 18
 

1 collected. And they had a handful more direct
 

2 radiation measurements and it had the amount of
 

3 thorium used up to that time.
 

4 And we have the FUSRAP survey summary report
 

5 that was -- this -- the survey was done in
 

6 1989. I think the report was actually
 

7 published in 1990, and that's -- that FUSRAP
 

8 survey was done of only a limited portion of
 

9 the facility, the portion of the facility where
 

10 the uranium work had been done. So they didn't
 

11 survey the entire Madison facility, they only
 

12 surveyed that. They found really very little
 

13 in terms of contamination or elevated dose
 

14 rate, and they did -- but they did collect some
 

15 dust samples that they analyzed for --

16 isotopically, and they found some uranium and
 

17 thorium in those.
 

18 Now our data capture attempts -- recognizing
 

19 that, you know, at the start of, you know, this
 

20 effort we hadn't necessarily completed all this
 

21 regu-- all this data capture, we proceeded and
 

22 -- and made these attempts at data capture.
 

23 The NRC, of course DOE Germantown had provided
 

24 us what they had. We have searched federal
 

25 records repositories as part of our rou-- our
 

P. 19
 

1 part. We've had worker outreach -- we had a
 

2 worker outreach meeting in Collinsville,
 

3 Illinois and we received quite a lot of worker
 

4 affidavits that also described how the work at
 

5 the site -- described pretty harsh working
 

6 conditions.
 

7 We made a request to Dow Chemical and -- about
 

8 do you have any records from the site; even
 

9 though you haven't owned it for 35 years,
 

10 roughly, do you have any records from the site.
 

11 And we had a discussion with the state of
 

12 Illinois about regulatory records they might
 

13 have for this covered period, but Illinois was
 
14 not yet an agreement state in 1960 and so they
 

15 didn't really have anything for the period we
 

16 were researching.
 

17 So we determined that we had -- you know, this
 

18 is late last year, we determined we didn't have
 

19 sufficient information to complete dose
 

20 reconstruction at the time. We notified the --

21 the -- a litmus tas-- litmus case claimant that
 

22 his dose reconstruction could not be completed
 

23 and we gave him a Form A SEC petition. He
 

24 returned it on November 28th.
 

25 This was about the time -- I think it was based
 

P. 20
 

1 on discussions at a Board meeting that we said,
 

2 you know, we really need to make sure we've
 

3 done, you know, the due diligence on data
 

4 capture and see if we've really found
 

5 everything we can, so we went down those aven--

6 those avenues. We wrote to Dow asking -- hang
 

7 on a second.
 

8 (Pause)
 

9 I apologize, I'm out of sequence here. I don't
 

10 think I have all my slides up here, but...
 

11 yeah.
 

12 There's a sequence of events and sequence of
 

13 slides that are not on the screen. I think
 

14 they're in the handout --

15 DR. ZIEMER: They are.
 

16 MR. HINNEFELD: I've got my handout here.
 

17 Okay, we requested -- we wrote to Dow asking do
 

18 you have any records about this. We didn't
 

19 hear anything for about two weeks after we
 

20 wrote to them, we -- so we called them and
 

21 engaged them in a telephone call. It's the
 

22 kind -- you know, a few people on our side and
 

23 a couple of people on their side, and they said
 

24 well, we actually have just -- responding --

25 we've just signed the letter responding to your
 

P. 21
 

1 request and we are going to go search for
 

2 records. And they warned us that, look, we
 

3 haven't owned this site for a long time. We
 

4 don't know we're able -- we'll find anything,
 

5 but we'll go look, and they asked for a little
 

6 mo-- from some more specificity about what it
 

7 was we were asking for. So we provided more
 
8 specificity.
 

9 We sent an e-mail, trying to be more specific
 

10 than we were in the letter request, about kinds
 

11 of information we were asking for and what we
 

12 were looking for. And we were looking for
 

13 information related to thorium work from 1957
 

14 to 1960, and any information about maybe
 

15 uranium -- the uranium work or uranium
 

16 contamination or the uranium -- the contracts,
 

17 et cetera, with AEC about that.
 

18 On Mar-- in March 13th, after Dow had been
 

19 looking for maybe three weeks, we called them
 

20 to find out the status. They indicated that
 

21 they had compiled possibly responsive documents
 

22 -- you know, essentially collected boxes from
 

23 various records storage areas that they had,
 

24 based on database searches and keyword
 

25 searches. In other words, that's how they
 

P. 22
 

1 looked in the first place, and they retrieved a
 

2 bunch of documents and they indicated that they
 

3 would have to inspect those documents in order
 

4 to tell for sure if there were things in there
 

5 that were responsive to our request. So they
 

6 brought back pretty much anything that would
 

7 hit, based on their keyword searches that they
 

8 made, any of those hits, and looked at those.
 

9 But they did tell us at that time that they had
 

10 no indication that they had any personal
 

11 monitoring data. But they said that they would
 

12 take some time to inspect those to tell them if
 

13 they were -- and on -- based on that phone
 

14 call, all of the OCAS participants on the phone
 

15 call were under the understanding it would take
 

16 about ten days to do this visual inspection of
 

17 the records that they had collected.
 

18 So we called them a little later, expecting
 

19 them to be done, and they indicated at that
 

20 time that the inspection hadn't started as
 

21 intended because of weather issues and the
 

22 person was going from Chicago to Midland to
 

23 actually visually inspect these records hadn't
 

24 been able to get out of Chicago because of
 

25 weather, so it had only -- so the inspection
 

P. 23
 

1 was just starting on February -- on March 26th,
 
2 whereas we thought it would be done. We --

3 still, we felt like another ten days and it'll
 

4 be done. We were still under the impression it
 

5 was going to be about a ten-day effort.
 

6 So we called them about ten days later, and at
 

7 that point we found out they were about 25
 

8 percent done and it would take till the end of
 

9 April to -- before they had completed their
 

10 visual inspection and could tell us if they had
 

11 responsive documents or not.
 

12 So of course the end of April has just
 

13 happened, and we didn't want to delay our
 

14 presentation any more, and so we felt confident
 

15 proceeding with the petition evaluation report
 

16 with the information we had. And the reasons
 

17 for that were that they had indicated that they
 

18 had no indication of personal monitoring data,
 

19 and we had -- at the time we had recei-- we had
 

20 two documents that we had received from our
 

21 search of NRC records, that '57 report from the
 

22 radiation safety officer and the 1960 AEC
 

23 inspection report. The AEC report in 1960
 

24 referred to 1957 data for air sampling data, so
 

25 we said it doesn't seem like they're going to
 

P. 24
 

1 provide us any more air sampling data during
 

2 this covered period. So we decided we would go
 

3 ahead and so it was placed on the agenda for
 

4 today's meeting.
 

5 And then on Saturday they responded and sent us
 

6 seven -- about 700 pages of documents that were
 

7 responsive in some nature to -- to what we'd
 

8 asked for. And so since Saturday we've --

9 we've read those documents. We've reviewed
 

10 them in light of what we've -- what we had at
 

11 ti-- what we had already, and there is -- so
 

12 the information we received will cause us to
 

13 change some of the details in our SEC
 

14 evaluation report, like number of samples. We
 

15 found maybe -- maybe there's another maybe
 

16 dozen to 15 air samples that were collected.
 

17 But those were also collected in the 1956 time
 

18 frame.
 

19 We found -- you know, we got many
 

20 manifestations of the same data over and over,
 

21 and we found very few samples actually were
 

22 taken after the 1956 data that was cited in the
 
23 1957 report by the RSO. The samples that were
 

24 taken later generally were on a specifically
 

25 limited activity, like they took some samples
 

P. 25
 

1 on sanding of an alloy, you know, and -- and
 

2 some air samples that resulted from that. So
 

3 there was actually very little additional data
 

4 that we received that related to internal
 

5 exposures to thorium over the weekend.
 

6 We recognize that the ownership -- the data
 

7 ownership change might be -- has to be revised.
 

8 The evaluation report says that Dow sold the
 

9 site to Consolidated Aluminum in 1969, but in
 

10 fact that sale occurred in 1973. Dow
 

11 discontinued its operation in 1969 and leased
 

12 the -- leased the site to Phelps-Dodge, but the
 

13 sale didn't occur until later.
 

14 So the additional information received over the
 

15 weekend hasn't changed our -- our original
 

16 recommendation that we don't have sufficient
 

17 information to reconstruct the thorium dose
 

18 from the 1957 to 1960 period. Because of the
 

19 complexity of the process, the short duration
 

20 of the samples -- I think probably the majority
 

21 of these samples were of the duration of maybe
 

22 five to 20 minutes -- we don't have repetitive
 

23 samples over time of an operation to kind of
 

24 figure out how the -- the operation changed
 

25 over time, there are comments in -- during some
 

P. 26
 

1 of the collections about the normal ventilation
 

2 was enhanced by opening the windows and turning
 

3 on these fans. And so, you know, we don't feel
 

4 like we can say with confidence that the
 

5 limited sampling that we have from early on
 

6 provides us sufficient information to really
 

7 decide, you know, and bound what -- how
 

8 conditions may have been during four years of
 

9 operation with this material.
 

10 We did get in -- over the weekend we did get
 

11 some additional external radiation measurements
 

12 that may in fact allow us to reconstruct an
 

13 external component of the -- of the thorium
 

14 dose, whereas before we didn't think we had
 

15 enough data to do that, either, but we may be
 

16 able to do that with the additional data.
 
17 Now for the uranium work, the covered work, we
 

18 have prepared sample dose reconstructions --

19 they've been on the O drive for a while -- that
 

20 describes essentially an OTIB-4-like method.
 

21 That is, the method we use for com-- you know,
 

22 it's AWE-wide method for the -- describes
 

23 airborne data that was encountered during the
 

24 early AWE operations as -- and it's used as
 

25 sort of a bounding -- this is a bounding
 

P. 27
 

1 estimate and it's used in many applications,
 

2 and we've used that in many applications.
 

3 It's likely that we can do a -- a more refined
 

4 estimate (unintelligible) than that because now
 

5 we have available to us a -- again, a multi6
 

site site profile that was prepared by Battelle
 

7 that has operation-specific air monitoring
 

8 data. For instance, it has a collection of air
 

9 monitoring data that was taken during extrusion
 

10 runs over time, for instance, at various sites.
 

11 And it has data collected for straightening
 

12 uranium at various times. And these -- since
 

13 this is essentially a metal-forming operation -

14 - I mean you know what they did. They took
 

15 metal and they shaped it, either extruded it or
 

16 -- or straightened it. That's a pretty, you
 

17 know, well-understood -- you know, kind of a
 

18 small variation in -- in the work that's done.
 

19 Whereas the thorium worked seemed to be quite
 

20 variable in terms of the kinds of things that
 

21 were done and the extent of the -- of the work,
 

22 and it just seemed to be a -- quite a -- a
 

23 diverse set of activities that would not -- you
 

24 know, you couldn't really confine to
 

25 essentially a constant set of conditions.
 

P. 28
 

1 Okay, so I think I am now back to the point
 

2 where the slides are on the screen.
 

3 So our conclusion is that we lack sufficient
 

4 information to estimate the internal doses
 

5 resulting from exposure to thorium. At the
 

6 time it was unlikely we had sufficient
 

7 information to estimate the contribution from
 

8 thorium; we may in fact have sufficient
 

9 information to estimate the thorium dose. This
 

10 would be applied during the covered period.
 
11 We believe we have access to sufficient
 

12 information to estimate the maximum dose that
 

13 could have been incurred from the exposure to
 

14 the uranium during the contract period and
 

15 during residual contamination period using
 

16 methods similar to OTIB-4. Like I said, OTIB17 4, we believe we can bound the dose with an
 

18 OTIB-4-type approach, or we may be able to
 

19 (unintelligible) a more refined estimate based
 

20 on the operation-specific data that we have in
 

21 the Battelle document. There is the more
 

22 precise...
 

23 And we believe we can estimate occupational
 

24 medical dose using complex-wide approaches
 

25 again.
 

P. 29
 

1 We've determined that the members of the class
 

2 were not exposed to extremely high radiation
 

3 dose during discrete incidents like a
 

4 criticality accident, but we believe there is
 

5 evidence that workers suffered a cumu-- or
 

6 accumulated chronic exposures that could in
 

7 fact endanger their health.
 

8 So the proposed class definition is here. It's
 

9 all AWE employees who were monitored, or should
 

10 have been monitored, for exposure to thorium
 

11 radionuclides while working at the Dow Chemical
 

12 Company site in Madison, Illinois for up to 250
 

13 -- or for a number of days aggregating 250
 

14 between January 1st, 1957 to December 31st,
 

15 1960, or in combination with -- in aggregate
 

16 with other sites -- other classes. And our
 

17 recommendation is to add that class definition
 

18 because we feel like that we don't have enough
 

19 information, it's not feasible to do accurate
 

20 dose reconstructions from the thorium --

21 internal thorium dose during that covered
 

22 period, and we feel like there was sufficient
 

23 dose that it could have very well endangered
 

24 their health.
 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, Stu. Next we'll
 

DANIEL W. MCKEEL, JR, MD DOW SEC-00079 CO-PETITIONER
 

pages 30 through 53
 

(footnote: SINEW is misspelled SINuW throughout)
 

P. 30
 

1 -- we'll hear from Dr. Dan McKeel who's
 
2 speaking on behalf -- or is one of the
 

3 petitioners. And Dan, we'll be pleased to hear
 

4 from you at this time.
 

5 DR. MCKEEL: Let's see, can I get some help
 

6 from somebody? I do have a Powerpoint to get
 

7 started. Can you help me on...
 

8 (Pause)
 

9 Good morning to the Board and -- and I thank
 

10 you for letting me make this presentation. I'm
 

11 very happy to be here today.
 

12 I am Dan McKeel. I'm a Missouri physician and
 

13 a pathologist, and a former faculty member for
 

14 31 years at Washington University School of
 

15 Medicine in St. Louis.
 

16 While there I published almost 200 scientific
 

17 articles and abstracts and held 36 NIH federal
 

18 grants. This year I published a textbook on
 

19 dementia management and diagnosis.
 

20 I have worked actively since 2000 on nuclear
 

21 industry issues that affect human health. My
 

22 remarks today are solely focused on Dow SEC
 

23 petition 79. Arthur Wieder, is the NIOSH
 

24 identified petitioner, and I am his designated
 

25 SEC petitioner. This report is entirely my
 

P. 31
 

own. No one else has seen it or edited it.
 

2 I represent members of the Southern Illinois
 

3 Nuclear Workers, our acronym is SINuW. I have
 

4 worked with the former Dow workers and ConAlCo
 

5 workers and present-day Spectrulite workers for
 

6 almost two years. I feel I know them and the
 

7 Dow Madison site operations very well.
 

8 An overriding consideration here is we were
 

9 very hampered by lack of access to primary site
 

10 records. Two members of our SINuW SEC team,
 

11 Robert Stephan from Illinois Senator Obama's
 

12 office and Debra Detmers from Illinois
 

13 Congressman John Shimkus's office, will make
 

14 remarks that amplify mine. Congressman Shimkus
 

15 and Senator Obama called to address the Board
 

16 about this SEC previously. And they and
 

17 Senator Durbin and Congressmen Jerry Costello
 

18 of Illinois have also written letters in our
 

19 behalf.
 

20 As have other SEC petitioners, I want to
 

21 express my appreciation to the Board, to SC&A
 

22 and to NIOSH for their help in this complex SEC
 
23 process. Laurie Breyer and Larry Elliott at
 

24 NIOSH, and many others at OCAS, have provided
 

25 assistance that I and SINuW deeply appreciate.
 

P. 32
 

1 There are five overarching issues that I will
 

2 address in turn about the Dow SEC. The first
 

3 is timeliness issues. I was first notified
 

4 about a Dow 83.14 on 9/6/06 by LaVon Rutherford
 

5 of NIOSH, and a litmus case candidate was
 

6 tentatively identified. I was informed that
 

7 ORAU would construct a class definition and
 

8 select a final litmus case in the next 30 days.
 

9 Sixty-two days later I was informed the first
 

10 litmus case, a worker who first filed a claim
 

11 in August of 2001, started after the end of the
 

12 covered period of 1957-'60 and therefore had
 

13 been rejected.
 

14 Mr. Wieder received his Form A from NIOSH on
 

15 November the 14th, 2006. Court reporter
 

16 verbatim transcripts, McKeel Powerpoints and
 

17 videotape recordings of three July through
 

18 August, 2006 Dow worker meetings that included
 

19 a NIOSH outreach meeting were delivered to
 

20 NIOSH in November of 2006. Mr. Wieder returned
 

21 his signed Form A with 37 affidavits to NIOSH
 

22 on November the 27th, 2006. Affidavit seven of
 

23 that batch refers to thorium shipments to Rocky
 

24 Flats, and affidavit number nine of the same
 

25 batch gives details about thorium source terms
 

P. 33
 

1 that differ markedly from the NIOSH evaluation
 

2 report as listed on page 13 of the 18-page
 

3 report.
 

4 The SEC evaluation report and presentation to
 

5 the Board was postponed by NIOSH shortly before
 

6 the December, 2006 Naperville, Illinois
 

7 meeting. And then the SEC 79 petition was
 

8 qualified on December the 14th of '06 and
 

9 published in the Federal Register.
 

10 Early in the next year, on January the 30th,
 

11 NIOSH and Mr. Hinnefeld sent Dow Midland
 

12 headquarters a request, and in the request the
 

13 letter mentioned monitoring data, source term
 

14 data, operations data and information related
 

15 to magnesium/thori-- thorium alloy shipments
 

16 from 1957 to 1998 relating to the Dow Madison,
 
17 Illinois site. The Dow SEC evaluation report
 

18 and presentation to the Board was postponed for
 

19 a second time by NIOSH shortly before the
 

20 February 7th to 9th Mason, Ohio meeting. Four
 

21 new NRC reports had emerged.
 

22 A Dow SEC update session was held February the
 

23 8th, 2007 at the Board meeting, and a 7384W
 

24 subpoena to obtain Dow Madison records was
 

25 discussed, and the Board tasked SC&A to become
 

P. 34
 

1 familiar with Dow SEC records.
 

2 After that time the delays in getting reports
 

3 seemed to accelerate, if a delay can
 

4 accelerate, but the rate of my receiving things
 

5 late increased. For example, three redacted
 

6 Dow worker meeting transcripts from July/August
 

7 of 2006 were posted on the OCAS web site
 

8 between April 17th and 19th of this year. The
 

9 Dow SEC petition with the first 37 affidavits
 

10 was posted on the OCAS web site after months of
 

11 redaction. The Dow second set of 29 new
 

12 affidavits was posted on the OCAS web site on
 

13 April 18th. Those affidavits are extremely
 

14 important because in them 11 additional workers
 

15 testify that Dow shipped truckloads of
 

16 magnesium/thorium allow to Rocky Flats in
 

17 Colorado. NIOSH did not challenge the
 

18 credibility of the second set of affidavits.
 

19 The SEC 79 evaluation report was finally posted
 

20 on OCAS web site April 19th, 2007. And Larry
 

21 Elliott had kindly sent me an electronic copy
 

22 on the 13th and a hard copy by FedEx on the
 

23 19th.
 

24 Four members of the Illinois Congressional
 

25 delegation requested the Board extend the Dow
 

P. 35
 

1 SEC class definition to cover the 1961-'98
 

2 residual uranium period on April the 27th. And
 

3 on that same day, at midnight, Dow Midland
 

4 posted a 52 megabyte zip-compressed archive
 

5 with hundreds of documents on an FTP server at
 

6 midnight, minus any index or explanation of
 

7 what the documents represented. I was not sent
 

8 that document. I got a copy by being alerted
 

9 by Robert Stephan and Joe Cuzmarazak. What is
 

10 -- was of great interest to us was the previous
 
11 year, in 2006, SINuW had had independent
 

12 negotiations with Dow for the same set of
 

13 documents, and we had gotten no responsive
 

14 records at that time.
 

15 On February the 8th, 2007 the Board meeting
 

16 transcript was posted that contained the
 

17 records of the -- of the Dow SEC update
 

18 session. That was posted on April the 30th in
 

19 the afternoon.
 

20 And then finally I got an e-mail from Larry
 

21 Elliott that the new Dow files that NIOSH had
 

22 received on the 27th of April might cause NIOSH
 

23 to ask the Board to delay a vote on the SEC
 

24 petition on May the 3rd. We strongly oppose
 

25 that and I'm very happy to see that we have now
 

P. 36
 

1 brought the petition evaluation report to the
 

2 Board today.
 

3 The second issue that I want to mention about
 

4 is some comments about the evaluation report
 

5 itself that was posted on the web site on the
 

6 19th of April. We developed 22 specific
 

7 concerns with this report that translated into
 

8 14 specific questions that were presented to
 

9 Larry Elliott and NIOSH on the 16th. A copy is
 

10 attached of these concerns and questions, and
 

11 they should be carried as an integral part of
 

12 this presentation.
 

13 Eight of the 14 questions were treated by NIOSH
 

14 as FOIA requests. SINuW has requested that
 

15 this decision be rescinded for the air
 

16 monitoring and the dose rate data and the
 

17 references, and that these data and reports be
 

18 sent to me immediately as part of the SEC
 

19 petitioner openness process. I regret that I
 

20 still have not had these records.
 

21 The following points were most disturbing after
 

22 the long wait and late arrival of the
 

23 evaluation report: One was the limitation of
 

24 the class to 1957-'60, and exclusion of the
 

25 uranium residual period, which we didn't
 

P. 37
 

1 believe was adequately justified.
 

2 Two, the important negotiations with Dow
 

3 Midland and David Burnick* and Kirkland and
 

4 Ellis for Dow Madison records was not even
 
5 acknowledged or described as to outcome.
 

6 Third, the crucial affidavit testimony
 

7 regarding a close working relationship between
 

8 the AEC, Rocky Flats and Dow Madison site for
 

9 thorium allows was overlooked, an inexcusable
 

10 oversight and rebuff to the workers and to all
 

11 the people that carefully prepared the site
 

12 expert testimony. Note that there is no Dow
 

13 site profile, and that the Dow site-specific
 

14 appendix to Badelle (sic) TIB-6000 which Stuart
 

15 just mentioned will not be forthcoming. There
 

16 won't be an appendix for uranium on TIB-6000.
 

17 This was according to Larry Elliott in a
 

18 conversation with Dr. Lewis Wade on April the
 

19 17th where we were talking about the SEC
 

20 arrangements. The rationale for not including
 

21 a Dow-specific appendix to TIB-6000 does not
 

22 make sense to me. We -- we disagree strongly
 

23 with NIOSH that ORAU-OTIB-04 Rev. 2 -- we
 

24 disagree with NIOSH that ORAU-OTIB-4 Rev. 2 is
 

25 adequate to reconstruct uranium doses at Dow
 

P. 38
 

1 because this technical document does not
 

2 adequately cover exposures to uranium extrusion
 

3 and rod-straightening in the rolling mill
 

4 section, or to uncharacterized known impurities
 

5 and chemical composition shifts in the uranium
 

6 ingots that Mallinckrodt produced. It does not
 

7 cover exposures to collate -- co-located
 

8 thorium-232 dust from the 1998 cleanup by USACE
 

9 -- that's the Army Corps of Engineers. So
 

10 although OTIB-4, which was mentioned in the
 

11 report, does cover uranium, we would agree with
 

12 Stuart and NIOSH that -- that there must be a
 

13 document like OTIB-6000 that covers the
 

14 extrusion and rod-straightening procedures.
 

15 But unfortunately, as I just mentioned, there
 

16 won't be an appendix specific for -- for Dow
 

17 about this.
 

18 Third item is the extension of the class
 

19 definition period to cover the uranium residual
 

20 period. As of 4/26/07 the Madison site has
 

21 submitted 322 Part B and E claims, 278 cases
 

22 representing 261 unique individuals, with 107
 

23 cases having been referred to NIOSH. Only two
 

24 dose reconstructions have been performed since
 

25 2001, and one claimant has been paid. Claims
 
P. 39
 

1 have been submitted for workers from all the
 

2 owners, including Dow, ConAlCo and Spectrulite.
 

3 OCAS acknowledged repeatedly that petitioner
 

4 McKeel is interested in having the SEC cover
 

5 the residual contamination period from 1961 to
 

6 1998 in addition to the operational period, the
 

7 contract period of 1957-'60 for Mallinckrodt
 

8 experimental uranium extrusion and rod9
 

straightening work. Approximately 70 claims,
 

10 41 of which have SEC cancers, will be covered
 

11 under a 1957-'60 class definition; whereas the
 

12 broader Dow class from 1957 to 1998 that I'm
 

13 asking for would include at least 23 additional
 

14 workers, including the candidate litmus
 

15 claimant who filed in August 2001 and whose
 

16 Part B claim is still pending. The exact
 

17 number covered under a 1957-1998 extended SEC
 

18 class is still unclear, and NIOSH is updating
 

19 those figures for the Board. On February the
 

20 8th, 2007 Larry Elliott acknowledges in the
 

21 public session that EEOICPA does not preclude
 

22 SEC coverage of the residual uranium period,
 

23 and that this period is covered for ordinary
 

24 dose reconstructions. The legal department
 

25 opinion that restricts NIOSH to doing dose
 

P. 40
 

1 reconstructions under SECs to just the covered
 

2 contract period and not the residual period is
 

3 cited in e-mails and so forth, but has never
 

4 been documented as being a written policy by
 

5 NIOSH by a named person on a particular date
 

6 that we have seen. The NIOSH SEC evaluation
 

7 report admits that regular EEOICPA claims can
 

8 be compensated for 1957 to 1998, but limits the
 

9 SEC class definition to 1957-'60 with what we
 

10 feel is a flawed and hard-to-grasp explanation.
 

11 And as I've mentioned, both U.S. Senators from
 

12 Illinois and two U.S. Congressmen from Illinois
 

13 have joined in a bipartisan request to NIOSH to
 

14 extend the class coverage out to 1998.
 

15 Now we come to that very important -- the
 

16 fourth point, which is Dow Madison
 

17 relationships with the Atomic Energy Commission
 

18 and thorium production and residual
 

19 contamination thorium. The U. S. Army Corps of
 
20 Engineers FUSRAP 2000 report contention that,
 

21 quote, no Dow Madison site thorium work was
 

22 AEC-related, end quote, cannot -- cannot be
 

23 backed up by any primary document, as
 

24 determined in a June, 2006 face meeting between
 

25 USACE, SINuW members and Congressman Shimkus's
 

P. 41
 

1 office in the Army Corps of Engineers' St.
 

2 Louis district office. The Corps did find
 

3 uranium and uranium dust being colla-- co4
 

located above the extrusion press rafters in
 

5 building six, and the reason for that of course
 

6 was that the same extrusion presses, the light
 

7 press and possibly the heavy press, were used
 

8 for both types of extrusion, so you expect to
 

9 have a mixed contamination above the presses.
 

10 We contend the AEC and commercial thorium
 

11 streams at Madison site are not separable, and
 

12 hence thorium should be calculated in dose
 

13 reconstructions throughout both residual
 

14 uranium and thorium contamination periods that
 

15 extend at least up to 1998. In addition, 11
 

16 Dow workers provided sworn notarized affidavits
 

17 to the effect that the Madison plant shipped
 

18 truckloads of thorium/magnesium metal alloy to
 

19 Rocky Flats and the S-- and the AEC. These
 

20 affidavits go unchallenged for credibility by
 

21 NIOSH at the time of submission. SINuW
 

22 strongly argues that the affidavits are both
 

23 credible and were neither coached nor
 

24 anecdotal, as characterized unofficially by
 

25 NIOSH, but never in writing to the petitioners
 

P. 42
 

1 McKeel and Arthur Wieder. McKeel and SINuW Joe
 

2 Cuzmarazak pro bono attorney strongly protested
 

3 characterization of Dow affidavits as being
 

4 coached or anecdotal. This was done in writing
 

5 to the Advisory Board Chair and to Dr. Wade as
 

6 the Designated Federal Official. The Illinois
 

7 delegation agrees. Dow Midland documents
 

8 received 4/27/07 -- and this is probably the
 

9 most important thing I can say to you today,
 

10 and I'll show you in the slide -- upcoming
 

11 Powerpoint slide presentation that those
 

12 documents that we got late on 4/27 prove that
 

13 Dow Madison provided centered magnesium, slide
 
14 number one, and magnesium/thorium allow, slide
 

15 number two, to Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
 

16 uranium divisions for their operations, and to
 

17 the AEC, and I will show those slides in a
 

18 short period. In addition, there is a Pangea
 

19 Group May 25th -- I'm sorry, June, 2005 thorium
 

20 inventory, slides three and four, that shows
 

21 widespread residual thorium metal throughout
 

22 former Dow plant buildings complex. Remember,
 

23 the FUSRAP report and the uranium cleanup was
 

24 restricted to building six. This report was
 

25 generated as Dow Madison is commissioning its
 

P. 43
 

1 current thorium license, Illinois 01750, with
 

2 the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.
 

3 Finally, my fifth point is that there has been
 

4 extreme harm to the workers, including
 

5 beryllium exposure at the Dow Madison plant.
 

6 Dow reports such as that by Silverstein* in
 

7 1957 and the 1960 AEC inspection report, which
 

8 we have not gotten but as reported in the
 

9 evaluation report, suggest that the mouse --

10 Madison site had an active, well-honed
 

11 radiation safety program. Nothing could be
 

12 farther from the truth as revealed by extensive
 

13 worker affidavits and meeting transcripts,
 

14 including the NIOSH outreach meeting held in
 

15 Collinsville, Illinois on 8/22/06. This was a
 

16 session where workers passed the microphone
 

17 down the rows and gave their testimony freely.
 

18 The risk of handling uranium, and especially
 

19 thorium and beryllium, were downplayed to the
 

20 Dow Madison workers, and even to supervisors,
 

21 by the plant management. There were numerous
 

22 magnesium and numerous thorium-related fires
 

23 and explosions, and worker injuries and even
 

24 deaths. OSHA was called in for many of these
 

25 incidents, and I'm sure will have appropriate
 

P. 44
 

1 reports. There were periodic special metal or
 

2 what's called PE, metal extrusion and rolling
 

3 mill runs -- and I should note that photo
 

4 engraving plates were a major Dow product --

5 where workers asked but were not told the true
 

6 nature of the metal they were working with.
 

7 They guessed it was some sort of thorium
 
8 compound based on the telltale behavior of the
 

9 ingots in the heated extrusion process. There
 

10 is, as Stuart mentioned, no individual
 

11 dosimetry data for Dow that's been produced by
 

12 -- by DOE or NIOSH. We've checked with
 

13 Landauer, and Dow Midland could not provide
 

14 any. The workers indicate that badges were, as
 

15 they put it, cosmetic, being worn for certain
 

16 inspections and then discarded without,
 

17 according to the workers, being read. None of
 

18 the workers ever had any feedback about any
 

19 dosimetry to themselves. Badge use was rare
 

20 before 1986. The workplace at Dow was dirty,
 

21 with high amounts of thorium-rich fumes and
 

22 smoke from the pot room that spilled over to
 

23 other buildings and even led to plant shut24
 

downs, the smoke was so bad at times. The
 

25 workers handled large quantities of pure
 

P. 45
 

1 thorium and beryllium metal as alloy components
 

2 from the 1950s through part of the 1990s. And
 

3 very recently a worker wrote me and said that
 

4 at least 20 pounds of beryllium were added to
 

5 most all aluminum alloy runs, and those
 

6 aluminum alloy runs continue today. Dr. Lar
 

7 Fuortes at the University of Iowa is studying
 

8 at least ten former Dow workers for respiratory
 

9 illnesses to rule out chronic beryllium lung
 

10 disease and/or pulmonary disease, especially
 

11 fibrosis, that are related to thorium exposure
 

12 that is apart from malignancy. The Dow plant
 

13 produced lacalloy*, which is a
 

14 beryllium/aluminum metal, starting in 1963.
 

15 Besides the FUSRAP uranium cleanup in 1998 in
 

16 building six, the affidavits and meeting
 

17 transcripts record many private cleanups at the
 

18 Madison site, and workers were involved in
 

19 those private cleanups and got episodic high
 

20 exposures during those cleanups. Two major
 

21 cleanups were ones in 1993 when ERG of
 

22 Albuquerque, New Mexico removed more than 850
 

23 railcars of magnesium/thorium sludge off-site
 

24 to Utah. And a second private cleanup includes
 

25 the current Pangea thorium license
 

P. 46
 

1 decommissioning cleanup that is ongoing.
 
2 Now if we can turn to the slides, let's see if
 

3 we can get them going forward here. Let's see
 

4 -- can somebody help me?
 

5 (Pause)
 

6 Okay. Now I -- the first slide I want you all
 

7 to please look at, and you'll have to look at
 

8 these on the screen, unfortunately -- oh, no.
 

9 For some reason this Powerpoint won't display
 

10 pictures, and that's going to be -- so what I -

11 - can somebody help me with this projector,
 

12 please? I have a PDF file which will show
 

13 these with the pictures. I can't imagine that
 

14 problem, but you must see the pictures, so --

15 so what I need is to get out of this...
 

16 (Pause)
 

17 All right. Sorry for the interruption. Now if
 

18 I can get you to please turn to the slides, I -

19 - I can just -- I can just -- can -- can you --

20 can you change these like this? Okay, that'll
 

21 be good.
 

22 (Pause)
 

23 So I want to turn -- this is probably the most
 

24 important slide on the screen. The Department
 

25 of Energy has two major databases that are
 

P. 47
 

1 available to characterize EEOICPA sites. One
 

2 is the considered sites database, and this is
 

3 the database that contains all of the
 

4 administrative record documents, for instance,
 

5 on cleanup, the FUSRAP reports. But the other
 

6 database, the Bible, if you will, is the
 

7 facility list, Department of Energy, EEOICPA,
 

8 and the listing in that database for the
 

9 Madison site includes this facility description
 

10 today, that's the point.
 

11 Facility description. The Dow facility in
 

12 Madison, Illinois supplied the AEC with
 

13 materials, chemicals, induction heating
 

14 equipment and metal magnesium metal products
 

15 and services. So I -- I must stress, Dow
 

16 facility in Madison supplied the AEC with metal
 

17 magnesium metal products. Dow received a
 

18 purchase order from the Mallinckrodt in March,
 

19 1960 -- well, that's an error right there
 

20 because the uranium work was done between '57
 

21 and '60, so this date is wrong, but that's
 

22 relatively minor -- for research and
 
23 development on the extrusion of uranium metal
 

24 and rod. Note this description does not
 

25 include anything about the thorium AEC work
 

P. 48
 

1 which I'm going to show you in the next few
 

2 slides.
 

3 (Pause)
 

4 Okay. All right, the next slide is a purchase
 

5 order, and as you can see, the date is October
 

6 the 28th, 1957. This is on Mallinckrodt
 

7 Chemical Works uranium division head. It's --

8 it's under -- it gives the AEC contract number.
 

9 It's to the Atomic Energy Commission, and I'll
 

10 show you the details of it, but it's about
 

11 magnesium metal.
 

12 This is a blow-up of that slide, so Dow Madison
 

13 was supplying -- oh, and I -- to make sure you
 

14 saw that. It's -- it's hard to read, but this
 

15 is -- this is the Dow plant office in Brentwood
 

16 Boulevard, but it's for the Dow Madison site.
 

17 And what Dow is supplying to the AEC is cell
 

18 magnesium. They give the type and here below,
 

19 some more cell magnesium chipped to a coarse
 

20 particle size, and there are 100 pounds of each
 

21 of those.
 

22 So that's the proof that Dow supplied magnesium
 

23 metal to Mallinckrodt now, and -- but they also
 

24 supplied magnesium alloy to -- to the AEC. And
 

25 what I'm going to show you is the magnesium
 

P. 49
 

1 alloy was thorium-containing. So this is the
 

2 direct link between thorium and the AEC.
 

3 Again, this is Dow Chemical that we're talking
 

4 about in Madison, Illinois. Mallinckrodt
 

5 Chemical Works uranium division purchase order
 

6 for the AEC under the AEC contract, and this is
 

7 the same contract that covered the uranium
 

8 work. I apologize that I -- you can't see that
 

9 better here, but the -- the original documents
 

10 are being submitted in writing to the Board as
 

11 soon as I finish this presentation, so you'll
 

12 have them.
 

13 Now this is a blow-up of this -- of this second
 

14 contract purchase order, if you will, and that
 

15 shows that AEC was being supplied by Dow
 

16 Madison with magnesium alloy plate. So this is
 
17 not magnesium metal, this is magnesium alloy
 

18 plate, and you can see here a number, and I'll
 

19 show you that a little bit blown up down here.
 

20 So it says magnesium alloy plate, and then
 

21 there is a number. And the numbers of alloys
 

22 are important because there's an ATSM (sic)
 

23 standard nomenclature for metal alloys.
 

24 And what you ca-- I -- I can't see what this
 

25 is. I don't know what that is. What I can see
 

P. 50
 

1 here is 21A -- it looks like XA, and that looks
 

2 like a T, so this doesn't mean anything to me,
 

3 but the 21A means quite a lot.
 

4 Now this is another document, and I should
 

5 mention that those two documents just shown to
 

6 you -- I apologize but I want to make sure you
 

7 see this -- these are documents that were
 

8 supplied to Robert Stephan, to Joe Cuzmarazak
 

9 pro bono attorney and to NIOSH and to Stuart
 

10 Hinnefeld on April the 27th of this year in
 

11 that big 52-megabyte zip file. And notice that
 

12 this number at the bottom, TDCC322, that's the
 

13 Dow Midland document number, so this is a
 

14 product of that long search that Stuart
 

15 described.
 

16 And this is another document in the same set
 

17 from Dow Midland, document TDCC318, I believe.
 

18 It's hard to see from this Powerpoint slide.
 

19 Now this is a third document that we got from
 

20 Dow Midland, and what this is is a table in one
 

21 of their reports that shows the composition of
 

22 the various alloys that the magnesium mill
 

23 produced. And I want to draw your attention to
 

24 these three right here in the middle with the
 

25 red bar, and to the content of those man--

P. 51
 

1 manganese, Mn percent, and Th, or thorium,
 

2 percent, and that's blown up here at the
 

3 bottom. And the one of particular interest --

4 all of these are thorium alloys. H in the
 

5 standard nomenclature refers to thorium. And I
 

6 want to draw your attention in particular to
 

7 thorium/manganese/magnesium alloy 21A. The
 

8 manganese maximum percent is .45 to 1.1
 

9 percent, the thorium percentage as listed here
 

10 is 1.5 to 2.5 percent, and the source of that,
 
11 again, was Kirkland and Ellis who are the
 

12 external counsels for the Dow Chemical Company.
 

13 I mentioned to you, and I showed this in
 

14 February to the Board, that there -- the Pangea
 

15 Group of St. Louis has been cleaning up the Dow
 

16 Madison site for the last two and a half years,
 

17 and these are the -- these are just two pages
 

18 from their June 2005 report showing the thorium
 

19 inventory throughout many of the buildings at
 

20 the Dow Madison complex. Building one, four,
 

21 five, six, seven, eight, nine and the machine
 

22 shop and building ten. And I would note that
 

23 this is various forms of thorium metal, and
 

24 they're all throughout the plant.
 

25 So the summary of this slide session is as
 

P. 52
 

1 follows: The Dow Madison site contracted for
 

2 uranium work with the AEC via Mallinckrodt
 

3 Chemical Works during 1957-'60, and the Dow
 

4 Madison plant supplied the AEC and Mallinckrodt
 

5 with centered magnesium and magnesium H21A
 

6 thorium alloy during 1957 and 1958, and the
 

7 commercial and the AEC thorium waste streams
 

8 are inseparable in the still-contaminated
 

9 sites. Therefore, we believe that the Dow SEC
 

10 should cover 1957 to 8 (sic) throughout the
 

11 uranium and thorium production and residual
 

12 periods.
 

13 Well, let's just -- let's just leave that up
 

14 there. I don't know how to turn it off.
 

15 So my final concluding remarks are the
 

16 following: I believe the Dow Madison Section
 

17 83.14 class should be extended from 1957 to '60
 

18 to 1957 to '98 to cover at least the uranium
 

19 production and residual contamination periods.
 

20 Because of the AEC-related thorium work with
 

21 Mallinckrodt and Rocky Flats, which I hope I've
 

22 proven to you existed, and given the fact that
 

23 commercial military and thorium waste streams
 

24 cannot be separated, nor can the thorium be
 

25 separated from the uranium dust during the
 

P. 53
 

1 residual period, we believe the SEC should also
 

2 include both the uranium and thorium residual
 

3 contamination period because they're all
 

4 intermixed. Thorium contamination continues
 
5 even today. The Dow Madison workers were
 

6 definitely severely harmed at this site for
 

7 decades related to their AEC work. They
 

8 deserve to be honored by extending the SEC
 

9 class to cover the full period of harm they
 

10 have been subjected to for -- for decades.
 

11 And finally, I'll leave you with just two
 

12 quotes from sworn affidavit number seven, from
 

13 two long-time Dow Madison workers. One worker
 

14 said I worked with the thorium from the first
 

15 time they run it to the last time when I
 

16 retired in 1990. I figure -- and the second
 

17 quote is, from the second worker, I figure the
 

18 thorium work started in '51 and it ended in
 

19 about 1998, is when they had the last slabs
 

20 over in the mill to be processed.
 

21 So that's the end of my presentation and I
 

22 thank you very much. And Dr. Ziemer, I'd like
 

23 to give you a copy of the -- (off microphone)
 

24 (unintelligible).
 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Dr. McKeel,
 

Footnote: The “unintelligible” statement made by Dr. McKeel to
 

Chairman Ziemer was “my 23 page presentation that I would like
 

to be made part of the record.” McKeel later asked that this
 

document be posted to NIOSH Dow Docket 113.
 

TESTIMONY OF DEBRA DETMERS, OFFICE OF IL REPUBLICAN
 

CONGRESSMAN JOHN SHIMKUS, pages 54 through 58
 

P. 54
 

1 and we'll make sure the full script gets both
 

2 to the Board members and onto the web site.
 

3 Next we will hear from Deb -- Deb Detmers, and
 

4 Deb, as was indicated previously, is a staff
 

5 member from Representative Shimkus's office,
 

6 and I think we're also going to read into the
 

7 record something from Representative Costello?
 

8 MS. DETMERS: I -- I am, thank you.
 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you.
 

10 MS. DETMERS: I'm going to do that first,
 

11 actually. Congressman Costello sent a letter
 

12 for the record, and Congressman Costello's our
 

13 colleague from the metro east area, showing the
 

14 bipartisan effort of this.
 

15 (Reading) I want to thank Chairman Ziemer and
 

16 the members of the Advisory Board on Radiation
 

17 and Worker Health for the opportunity to submit
 
18 testimony regarding the Dow Chemical Company
 

19 Special Exposure Cohort 00079 petition under
 

20 evaluation. I strongly support this petition
 

21 and ask the Board to give it a fair and
 

22 thorough review.
 

23 As you are aware, the National Institute of
 

24 Occupational Safety and Hazard (sic) submitted
 

25 an SEC evaluation report on -- report petition
 

P. 55
 

1 on April 13th, 2007. The report addresses
 

2 atomic weapons employees at the Dow Chemical
 

3 Company in Madison, Illinois who worked at
 

4 least 250 days from January 1st, 1957 through
 

5 December 31st, 1960. This petition is a
 

6 resource providing critical information in
 

7 order to bet-- in order to better understand
 

8 the full extent of the workers' exposure to
 

9 chemicals and radiation.
 

10 It is my understanding that NIOSH has 75 claims
 

11 within this covered time period, and a total of
 

12 116 active Dow cases. While I realize this
 

13 meeting today is to examine the covered time
 

14 period, the residual contamination period
 

15 cannot be ignored. Therefore I urge the Board
 

16 at some point in the near future to conduct a
 

17 full examination of Dow Chemical petitions to
 

18 ensure no employees are wrongly denied workers'
 

19 compensation. These workers who are exposed to
 

20 hazardous chemicals and radiation, as well as
 

21 their beneficiaries, deserve quick action.
 

22 Too many workers at Dow have waited years for
 

23 help, and they deserve a comprehensive review
 

24 without further delay. I look forward to
 

25 working with the Advisory Board on worker
 

P. 56
 

1 compensation issues at Dow Chemical, and will
 

2 continue to work with my colleagues in the
 

3 House and the Senate to ensure our nation's
 

4 atomic workers and their families receive the
 

5 benefits they deserve.
 

6 Jerry Costello, Member of Congress.
 

7 You -- you heard from my boss yesterday, he's
 

8 the one who called in from the airport, so I'm
 

9 not going to repeat everything he said. And
 

10 I'm only going to talk very briefly.
 

11 I became involved in this six years ago when
 
12 two men walked into my office, [Name Redacted]
 

13 and Bill Hoppe. I didn't know anything about
 

14 this program. I didn't even know what NIOSH
 

15 was. But I've learned a lot in six years. I
 

16 know these workers personally. I've been to
 

17 all of their meetings. I have been to their
 

18 reunions. I have been to their houses. I've
 

19 been to their funerals. I have heard the same
 

20 stories for six years. I've heard the same
 

21 stories independently for six years. I've
 

22 heard the stories of thorium for six years.
 

23 These affidavits that these men have provided
 

24 are credible and valid. These men -- even at
 

25 the workers' meetings, if somebody says
 

P. 57
 

1 something and one of the other guys questions
 

2 it, they will correct each other. These --

3 they do not know how to lie. These are not men
 

4 who know how to lie. They are telling the
 

5 truth of what happened at that plant.
 

6 I don't want the Board to dismiss this because
 

7 of lack of documentation. No stone's been
 

8 unturned in trying to get to get to this
 

9 documentation. Dr. McKeel and I sat at the
 

10 state EPA and went through tons of dusty
 

11 documents. We've sat with the federal EPA.
 

12 We've sat with IEMA, which is the Illinois
 

13 Emergency Management Association. We've been
 

14 to the Corps of Engineers library. We've
 

15 recently gotten -- went through 400 pages of
 

16 Dow documents. We have FOIA requests that
 

17 haven't been answered yet. Every effort to get
 

18 documentation has been made.
 

19 I think -- we have the scientific evidence that
 

20 Dr. McKeel presented. We have very true
 

21 affidavits from these men. And I urge you
 

22 today to extend this SEC -- to the residual
 

23 contamination period through 1998.
 

24 And I want to -- or I urge you that the time is
 

25 today. The time isn't the next Board meeting.
 

P. 58
 

1 The time isn't down the line. The time I think
 

2 to do this is today. Thank you.
 
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT STEPHAN, STAFF OF IL DEMOCRAT
 

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, pages 58 through 65
 

Begins P. 58, line 3
 

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Then we'll
 

4 hear from Robert Stephan, who's from Senator
 

5 Obama's office.
 

6 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. First I
 

7 have a statement from Senator Durbin's office
 

8 that I would like to read into the record, if
 

9 that's okay.
 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yes.
 

11 MR. STEPHAN: It's addressed to you. It says
 

12 (reading) Thank you for your kind consideration
 

13 of this matter before the Advisory Board on
 

14 Radiation and Worker Health in expanding the
 

15 class to cover workers employed during the
 

16 residual period, through 1998. I have met with
 

17 the workers who provided the affidavits, and
 

18 have listened to their stories. Especially in
 

19 this case where there is little documentation
 

20 to challenge their accounts, I hope you will
 

21 give the affidavits provided their full
 

22 consideration.
 

23 In addition, I'm hoping for a prompt resolution
 

24 of this matter and these workers' claims. The
 

25 SEC process has been pending for months, and
 

P. 59
 

1 due to the health and age of many of the
 

2 workers, it is imperative that the Board
 

3 promptly consider the merits of the case.
 

4 Thank you for permitting me to raise these
 

5 issues, and for your service on this Board.
 

6 Sincerely, United States Senator Dick Durbin.
 

7 Dr. Ziemer, I just want to go into a little bit
 

8 more detail in terms of how the Senator views
 

9 this. You know, he called in the other day,
 

10 but he just wants to kind of summarize this
 

11 down to how he sees this. Okay? And hopefully
 

12 -- I want to make it an assumption here, I
 

13 supposed, but hopefully the 83.14 is going to
 

14 be approved, so we're kind of focusing in on
 

15 this residual period here. And I do want to
 

16 give credit where credit is due to NIOSH.
 

17 Certainly our office has been very tough on
 

18 NIOSH at times, Larry and Stu and everybody
 

19 else can attest to that. But we have to be
 
20 fair and give credit when it's due, and they
 

21 have done a good job in recognizing at least
 

22 the '57 through '60 period, and in working with
 

23 us on this issue.
 

24 So to -- to square this up as to where we are
 

25 now, let's -- let's go back to the February
 

P. 60
 

1 meeting that was in Cincinnati, Ohio -- okay? -

2 - and just go through some of those comments
 

3 there that -- that I think brings us to where
 

4 we are now and we'll kind of focus this down,
 

5 at least from the Senator's point of view, and
 

6 hopefully we can come up with some sort of a
 

7 resolution.
 

8 Obviously the issue is did Dow Madison produce
 

9 AEC-related -- deal with AEC-related thorium
 

10 after 1960. Okay. So, and if they -- and if
 

11 they provided it to Rocky Flats or Mallinckrodt
 

12 -- mainly Rocky Flats is what we've been
 

13 talking about -- then that, in and of itself,
 

14 is pretty good evidence of AEC-related thorium
 

15 at Dow Madison after 1960. So from the
 

16 transcripts -- the meeting transcripts of the
 

17 Advisory Board from February, quoting Larry
 

18 Elliott, you know, let's be clear that this
 

19 goes to the covered facility description. The
 

20 covered facility description, that is DOE and
 

21 DOL's responsibility to set in place. It is
 

22 our understanding at NIOSH that the
 

23 documentation that has been provided by the
 

24 DOE, reviewed by DOL and reviewed by our folks,
 

25 both in the general counsel's office and our
 

P. 61
 

1 technical staff, do not find any linkage of AEC
 

2 work after the covered period of '57 to '60.
 

3 We have to go by that unless there's another
 

4 document produced that indicates otherwise. We
 

5 are bound by the law and the regulations to
 

6 only reconstruct the AEC portion of that dose.
 

7 Then continuing to quote Larry, and we've been
 

8 talking about these -- these affidavits, so
 

9 this is NIOSH's position as I understand it, on
 

10 the record, quoting the February transcripts.
 

11 We do not question the veracity or the validity
 

12 of the affidavit comments that have been
 

13 provided to us. Again, we do not question the
 
14 veracity of the affidavit testimonies about
 

15 working on thorium. We understand they worked
 

16 on thorium. This was a dirty place. It was a
 

17 dirty operation. We don't quibble about the
 

18 facts that these folks -- these fine folks were
 

19 put in harm's way, et cetera, et cetera, et
 

20 cetera.
 

21 So if we're -- according to Larry Elliott
 

22 still, so if we're going to take up a
 

23 discussion about the covered facility
 

24 description, I think you need to employ in that
 

25 discussion Department of Energy and Department
 

P. 62
 

1 of Labor. NIOSH has no responsibility or
 

2 authority in that regard.
 

3 So what's the point. The point is, NIOSH has
 

4 done their job. NIOSH -- NIOSH has done what
 

5 NIOSH is bound to do. So -- and we -- and we
 

6 appreciate that. So where do we go from there,
 

7 and where we go is to the site description that
 

8 Dr. McKeel went through. We go to the DOE and
 

9 we say give us documents to show us how you
 

10 came up with your site description for AEC11
 

related thorium from '57 to '60. You can't
 

12 just tell us that's what it is. You have to
 

13 give us something. It's not going to work just
 

14 saying we're the Department of Energy and this
 

15 is what it's going to be.
 

16 So what did they give us. They gave us a
 

17 FUSRAP report. The FUSRAP report references
 

18 itself. There's nothing in the FUSRAP report
 

19 that shows why they say that. So where does
 

20 that take us? Well, that takes us down --

21 after all of this, after all NIOSH's work,
 

22 after all the work that Dr. McKeel and SINuW
 

23 and two Congressmen and two Senator's office
 

24 and all of your work, where we are today is a
 

25 he said/she said -- a he said/she said between
 

P. 63
 

1 the Department of Energy and -- unless I'm
 

2 missing something, and I don't think that --

3 that we are, after Stu's presentation -- a he
 

4 said/she said between the Department of Energy
 

5 and, to a lesser extent, the Department of
 

6 Labor and 11 affidavits from the workers, that
 

7 NIOSH does not question, that say thorium was
 
8 shipped to Rocky Flats. One of those workers
 

9 worked in shipping and attested the fact that
 

10 he saw the shipping manifest to -- sending
 

11 thorium to Rocky Flats beyond 1960. So -- and
 

12 that -- and that's what Dr. McKeel showed you.
 

13 So that's where we are, and I just want to make
 

14 sure that -- for the record, I think you all
 

15 understand this perfectly, but for the record,
 

16 that's what this is about. This is a he
 

17 said/she said between the Department of Energy
 

18 and at least 11 workers from Dow Madison and
 

19 this -- in the Senator's view and this is why
 

20 he wanted me to make this point -- this is a
 

21 critical moment in the history of this Board.
 

22 Do we take the statements of workers over
 

23 statements of -- from the Department of Energy
 

24 that cannot be backed up by documents.
 

25 Now it has been said that the workers'
 

P. 64
 

1 testimony cannot be backed up by documents.
 

2 The Department of Energy testimony can't be
 

3 backed up by documents. They have a report
 

4 that they wrote that -- FUSRAP, the FUSRAP
 

5 report, that USACE wrote that -- that
 

6 references itself, so they don't have a
 

7 document, either. So in this -- in this whole
 

8 dialogue of not having documents, they don't
 

9 have any documents, so that doesn't count. The
 

10 FUSRAP report doesn't count. So what are we
 

11 going to do, is the question. What is the
 

12 Board going to do? You can cover the residual
 

13 period. Are we going to take worker testimony
 

14 at face value or are we not going to take
 

15 worker testimony because the Department of
 

16 Energy references a document that references
 

17 itself.
 

18 So in the Senator's eyes, that's where we see
 

19 things today. We really hope, as much as you
 

20 possibly can, that you will act on this
 

21 residual issue today and not put it off until
 

22 August or -- or September or whenever the next
 

23 Board meeting is. We -- we really want to move
 

24 on this today, put this issue to rest. These
 

25 are 23 additional workers we're talking about,
 

P. 65
 

1 and move on.
 
2 So appreciate your time. We appreciate your
 

3 efforts, Larry and Stu and everyone at NIOSH.
 

4 I wish Libby White were here today to discuss
 

5 this issue from the Department of Energy 'cause
 

6 I presented this to her and so -- you know, I
 

7 take the Department of Energy's absence to mean
 

8 that they don't question what I just said about
 

9 their report, so I just want to make sure that
 

10 that's in the record. Thank you.
 

DR. MCKEEL MAKES FURTHER CO-PETITIONER REMARKS,
 

Pages 65 through ___
 

P. 65
 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Robert. And I'm -- I'm
 

12 going to ask if there are any other petitioners
 

13 or maybe -- maybe you know, Dr. McKeel, if --

14 is there anyone by phone that --

15 DR. MCKEEL: I don't believe so. I -- I just
 

16 had one sentence to add --

17 DR. ZIEMER: Please.
 

18 DR. MCKEEL: -- and I apologize, but I forgot
 

19 to say this. But on February the 23rd of this
 

20 year I wrote Glenn Podonsky* at DOE a very
 

21 detailed letter about just this issue of the
 

22 facility description and the error that's on
 

23 the -- that I just showed to you in the
 

24 Powerpoint slide presentation. I have gotten
 

25 back a -- what I would characterize as a
 

P. 66
 

1. partial answer, but really that missed the
 

2 entire point of the thorium connection that
 

3 they themselves note on the facilities list.
 

4 So just to make it complete, I really think
 

5 we've tried to do what the Board admonished us
 

6 to do, what Larry Elliott asked us to do.
 

7 We've sought the guidance from the proper
 

8 agencies. I sent copies of that letter to
 

9 NIOSH. I've talked to Peter Turcic repeatedly
 

10 about the facility description and he says go
 

11 back to DOE. So we've really done that. We've
 

12 tried in good faith to do what we can do, and I
 

13 think Robert's right. He's describing --

14 that's where we are today.
 

Footnote: On January 8, eight months after this Dow presentation
 

occurred, 2008 Glenn Podonsky form DOE-HSS sent a letter to
 
Peter Turcic of DOE confirming that Dow Madison met the criteria
 

for a thorium AWE site based on information that thorium alloys
 

produced at the plant probably were used in nuclear weapons
 

production in 1957-58. He also noted that the same thorium
 

alloys were used nationwide in nuclear weapons for a far longer
 

period of time: 1956 through 1969. These conclusions were based
 

on documents from Livermore Lab, a DOE site. The complete set of
 

relevant documents has never been released by DOE to anyone in
 

the EEOICPA program to my knowledge. -- Dan McKeel 2/11/2011.
 

TESTIMONY BY DOW WORKER BILL HOPPE: pages 66 through 68
 

P. 66
 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, and I'll just double
 

check. Are there -- is anyone by phone --

17 petitioners by phone representing Dow?
 

18 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible)
 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Representing Dow?
 

20 UNIDENTIFIED: Yes.
 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Could you speak up and give us
 

22 your name again?
 

23 MR. HOPPE: My name is Bill Hoppe.
 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Bill, right. Did you have
 

25 some comments, Bill?
 

P. 67
 

1 MR. HOPPE: Yes, we have (unintelligible) more
 

2 information, you know, than what they gave, but
 

3 the whole thing is is a lot of it was kept from
 

4 the (unintelligible) of the workers down there
 

5 and they -- we didn't really know what -- what
 

6 we were running in that, but the uranium, they
 

7 were running uranium down there in '75 on
 

8 (unintelligible) and they ran uranium
 

9 (unintelligible) straightening the rods
 

10 (unintelligible) put over in the
 

11 (unintelligible) in the rolling mill and it was
 

12 up in the (unintelligible) and safety
 

13 (unintelligible) area -- era when they were
 

14 doing that. And the (unintelligible) of that
 

15 plant had thorium work done in it or stored in
 

16 it in that, from the (unintelligible) office
 

17 where they (unintelligible) all the metal to --

18 all the way through to the finished part when
 

19 they shipped it out. But (unintelligible)
 

20 since we've started on this (unintelligible)
 

21 about six years ago now, we've got over 40
 

22 people that's died of cancer and they hold out
 
23 (unintelligible) longer, we'll all be dead.
 

24 You know, that's the whole thing in a nutshell.
 

25 If you've got any questions for me, I'll be
 

P. 68
 

1 more than happy to (unintelligible) answer
 

2 them.
 

DISCUSSION OF DOW SEC PETITION EXTENSION TO COVER
 

THE RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION PERIOD AMONG BOARD MEMBERS,
 

HHS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, DR. MCKEEL, DR. LEWIS WADE,
 

STUART HINNEFELD AND LARRY ELLIOTT OF OCAS:
 

Pages 68 through 124
 

P. 68
 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, Bill.
 

4 Now Board members, this -- this petition is
 

5 open for discussion. There -- there appears to
 

6 be actually two issues. We -- we have the
 

7 evaluation report to react to or to act on.
 

8 There is, in a sense, an additional request,
 

9 which is the issue of extending the covered
 

10 period.
 

11 Now I think it's important and we need -- and
 

12 there may be great sympathy toward that. I
 

13 think there also is a legal issue and I need to
 

14 have some definition, perhaps. I don't know if
 

15 legal counsel can tell us. My understanding is
 

16 that the -- the definitions of those are -- are
 

17 not the prerogative of this Board; they are
 

18 established by Labor. Is that correct, or --

19 maybe somebody could clarify that. I -- I want
 

20 to clarify what authority this Board has on the
 

21 issue of defining those periods.
 

22 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: If you're talking about what
 

23 periods are covered -- is that what you're
 

24 asking?
 

25 DR. ZIEMER: The cov-- the covered periods --

P. 69
 

1 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Are defined by the
 

2 Department of Labor and the Department of
 

3 Energy. They are not the prerogative of this
 

4 Board or of Health and Human Services.
 

5 DR. ZIEMER: So that if the Board -- the only
 

6 thing the Board could do at that -- at this
 

7 point would be, for example, to express an
 
8 opinion to perhaps the Secretary of Health and
 

9 Human Services to -- an opinion to convey
 

10 something to those agencies.
 

11 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right, they -- the Advisory
 

12 Board --

13 DR. ZIEMER: But we do not have the authority
 

14 to change --

15 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, you do not have the
 

16 authority to change it. The Advisory Board
 

17 could provide a recommendation to the Health
 

18 and -- the Secretary of Health and Human
 

19 Services to contact the Department of Energy
 

20 and the Department of Labor regarding whatever
 

21 opinion you want to provide.
 

22 DR. ZIEMER: So -- and Dan, you -- you have a
 

23 comment on that, too.
 

24 DR. MCKEEL: That really avoids the issue.
 

25 What -- what we are saying, and we back this up
 

P. 70
 

1. by numerous statements, including [Name
 

2 Redacted] opinion reading the Act, that there
 

3 is nothing in EEOICPA, nothing, no wording,
 

4 that forbids an SEC to cover the residual
 

5 period. Now that's a flat statement, so I
 

6 would think that what we need an -- a legal
 

7 opinion on is is that statement correct or not.
 

8 I don't think we are impeded -- I don't think
 

9 you're impeded from covering the residual
 

10 period.
 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

12 DR. MCKEEL: If you believe that the things
 

13 that I said were true, that that was AEC work -

14 - intermixed AEC uranium and AEC thorium, that
 

15 it originated in 1957 to '60 period and
 

16 extended on up into the future.
 

17 DR. ZIEMER: I think one of the practical
 

18 outcomes, though, is that whatever this Board
 

19 recommends goes to the Secretary and the
 

20 Secretary probably gets back to that
 

21 definition. So we -- we have to work within
 

22 those boundaries, but I'm -- I'm trying to
 

23 assess this myself. Thank you -- please.
 

24 MR. STEPHAN: Ju-- just as an aside here, we
 

25 have to say for the record, it is insulting to
 

Footnote: The redacted name in lines 1 and 2 was Richard Miller
 

of GAP who is now a Congressional staff member.
 
P. 71
 

1 the workers, it is insulting to you, it is
 

2 insulting to us. The Department of Labor and
 

3 the Department of Energy have known for months
 

4 upon months upon months that we were going to
 

5 discuss this today, and now no one is here
 

6 except for possibly legal counsel -- your legal
 

7 counsel for HHS. So it's just -- it's
 

8 ridiculous that they left, absolutely
 

9 ridiculous that they left and now no one is
 

10 here to engage in this conversation when they
 

11 knew all along how important this was to us.
 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, Robert. Lew,
 

13 could you add to this?
 

14 DR. WADE: Well, let me try to deal with Dr.
 

15 McKeel's question. And again, if I'm wrong,
 

16 please jump up and correct me, counsel or
 

17 Larry. I think that NIOSH had the ability to
 

18 include the residual contamination period in
 

19 its definition, but NIOSH is saying that if you
 

20 refer back to the 2005 Defense Authorization
 

21 Act, as amended, that the only radioactive
 

22 material that we could consider in that
 

23 judgment was the DOE or the AEC work. And we
 

24 have determined that we feel we can reconstruct
 

25 dose for the uranium, and that's what we start
 

P. 72
 

1 from.
 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And Stu?
 

3 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, we proceeded with this
 

4 with the understanding that the extrusion of
 

5 the uranium and the straightening of the
 

6 uranium was the AEC work that caused this site
 

7 to be on the list. And you know, we don't --

8 we have not been a party or part of the
 

9 selection -- you know, identification of Atomic
 

10 Weapons Employers or what thought process or --

11 or procedure or whatever was employed in the
 

12 selection of these sites from the outset. And
 

13 so our -- our understanding was that it was the
 

14 uranium work that was done that made this, you
 

15 know, a site, that put it on the -- and so we
 

16 proceeded along that, that that was the AEC
 

17 work and that the thorium that was used in
 

18 their commercial products was commercial work.
 
19 I mean that's how we proceeded on this.
 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Right, but it -- it seems pretty
 

21 clear that there was thorium work going on in
 

22 the early days --

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes.
 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- with the AEC. Do we --

25 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, usually --

P. 73
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: -- do we have anything that
 

2 establishes that uranium only was the basis or
 

3 not? In other words, can one make the
 

4 assumption that both uranium and thorium work
 

5 were going on as part of the covered period and
 

6 therefore carries forward?
 

7 MR. HINNEFELD: I -- I don't -- I don't know.
 

8 I mean we didn't -- like I said, we didn't
 

9 participate in the identification of -- of AWE
 

10 sites and AWE lists, and so we're not really
 

11 cognizant of the process of what was the
 

12 thought process that put these sites on this
 

13 list out of, you know, various companies --

14 DR. WADE: But -- but more than the thought
 

15 process, who has the responsibility for making
 

16 the definitions and what are the definitions
 

17 that we're operating to?
 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: The Department of Energy is
 

19 responsible for designating the sites that are
 

20 -- that are AWE sites. Isn't that right?
 

21 DR. WADE: Correct.
 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: So they are the ones who make
 

23 that designation.
 

24 DR. WADE: And what is their designation
 

25 relative to Dow Madison?
 

P. 74
 

1 MR. HINNEFELD: They describe, you know, what -

2 - what -- I think Dr. McKeel even commented,
 

3 you know, they describe they did these things.
 

4 During the time they extruded uranium, they
 

5 straightened rods, they sold other things,
 

6 sometimes to the AEC. So that's -- that's what
 

7 they said in their description.
 

8 DR. WADE: But the covered period for this
 

9 facility is what?
 

10 MR. HINNEFELD: 1957 to 1960.
 

11 DR. WADE: And within that covered period, what
 

12 is the definition of the work that was the AEC
 
13 work?
 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know that the
 

15 definition exists anywhere. I mean there's a
 

16 description of -- of what was done during that
 

17 period, but I don't know that it goes
 

18 specifically -- it doesn't specifically say and
 

19 this site is on the list because of something,
 

20 so...
 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- it appears that it's
 

22 been established that both were going on. I
 

23 think Dr. McKeel has established that.
 

24 DR. MCKEEL: Can -- can I have -- just -- I'll
 

25 try to clarify this --

P. 75
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, please do.
 

2 DR. MCKEEL: -- 'cause I've wrestled with this
 

3 and I -- I want to offer a simple explanation.
 

4 What I've shown you is additional purchase
 

5 orders to the purchase orders that the
 

6 Department of Energy has included in all of the
 

7 documents about this site as being evidence
 

8 that Dow Madison did AEC uranium work for
 

9 Mallinckrodt Chemical Company. I'm saying in
 

10 that same series of purchase orders we got from
 

11 -- from Dow Midland, the current company, more
 

12 documents, more purchase orders that showed
 

13 that some of the thorium -- some
 

14 thorium/magnesium alloy work was done for the
 

15 AEC and Mallinckrodt. So I think the problem
 

16 here is either that the Department of Energy
 

17 never got those thorium-related purchase
 

18 orders, or they're not producing them, or
 

19 they're lost, or something. But I must say,
 

20 you know, Dow responded in 2007 to these
 

21 requests. The program started in 2001. And
 

22 before -- and to be honest about what's
 

23 happened here, I don't believe anybody,
 

24 including the Department of Energy, has thought
 

25 about approaching Dow Midland until we brought
 

P. 76
 

1 it up and initiated those discussions in 2006.
 

2 And so what I'm saying is I think, on the other
 

3 hand, the Department of Energy clearly knew
 

4 about these documents because they have on
 

5 their facilities list that Dow supplied
 

6 magnesium alloy. Now this is the simplifying
 
7 explanation. Everybody who's in the metallurgy
 

8 industry -- everybody -- knows about ATSM (sic)
 

9 alloy designations. They know about the
 

10 standard nomenclature of alloys. They know
 

11 about Hm* and Hk* and all that. That would be
 

12 immediate; that's a code word to them, thorium.
 

13 However, when Debbie Detmers and I, for
 

14 instance, went to the Illinois EPA and we
 

15 looked up the air pollution permits for the
 

16 Madison company that -- Dow Madison, we found
 

17 that their air pollution permit said that what
 

18 they did at that plant was that they were
 

19 secondary magnesium and aluminum smelters.
 

20 Well, it's true that the va-- the -- the bulk
 

21 of the alloy is either magnesium or aluminum.
 

22 But what is omitted from the DOE facilities
 

23 list and what was omitted from those Illinois
 

24 EPA air pollution permits is that it wasn't
 

25 pure magnesium, it wasn't pure aluminum. They
 

P. 77
 

1 were alloyed with things, and one of the things
 

2 for which Dow was known countrywide was
 

3 thorium/magnesium alloys. They made it in
 

4 Bayside; they made it in Midland, Michigan;
 

5 they made it in Texas City, Texas; and Dow
 

6 Midland at the same time had a plant out in
 

7 Walnut Creek, which is an EEOICPA covered site
 

8 that processed thorium ores for the AEC. So
 

9 they were doing a lot of thorium work and --

10 and Dow thorium at least Walnut Creek was AEC11
 

related. So I believe it's a nomenclature
 

12 matter. I think that whoever wrote that
 

13 federal facilities description, had they known
 

14 anything much about metals, metallurgy, alloys,
 

15 alloy nomenclature, that instead of saying
 

16 metal magnesium metal products, they would have
 

17 said metal -- they -- they -- what they should
 

18 have said is magnesium and magnesium/thori--

19 thorium alloys for the AEC. I mean the --

20 clearly those purchase orders were AEC purchase
 

21 orders. They were not merely commercial.
 

22 Now it's also true that everybody now knows,
 

23 you know, that magnesium/thorium alloys were
 

24 particularly useful in the aircraft industry,
 

25 in fighter planes, in rockets, in the space
 
P. 78
 

1 shuttle, in intercontinental ballistic missiles
 

2 and -- and Dow provided thousands of tons of
 

3 magnesium/thorium alloys for that point. So I
 

4 think it's just a matter of somebody doing a --

5 a good job. What -- what can be faulted,
 

6 however, I think is what Robert's alluding to,
 

7 is we have brought that to the attention of the
 

8 Department of Energy. Now maybe we need to
 

9 bring it a little more forcefully with a little
 

10 more evidence, and certainly what the
 

11 Department of Energy has not seen are these
 

12 purchase orders that I showed you on the screen
 

13 from Dow Midland. And we -- we -- well, they
 

14 need to look at those. But I -- I find it very
 

15 hard to believe that they would obtain the
 

16 purchase orders that relate to uranium but not
 

17 the purchase orders that relate to thorium.
 

18 DR. WADE: But could -- could I ask you a
 

19 question, just to --

20 DR. MCKEEL: Sure.
 

21 DR. WADE: -- clarify this for the--

22 DR. MCKEEL: Sure.
 

23 DR. WADE: Because we need to chart a course
 

24 forward.
 

25 DR. MCKEEL: Right.
 

P. 79
 

1 DR. WADE: The facility description that you
 

2 put in front of us --

3 DR. MCKEEL: Uh-huh.
 

4 DR. WADE: -- that facility description needs
 

5 to be modified --

6 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, sir.
 

7 DR. WADE: -- you -- you propose.
 

8 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, sir.
 

9 DR. WADE: If it's modified, then NIOSH can
 

10 start with that modified facility description
 

11 and move forward, so that's the -- the core
 

12 issue that we're looking at here. Correct?
 

13 DR. MCKEEL: I believe that's the core issue.
 

14 The -- the exception that I would take to what
 

15 you just said is I'm not sure -- if the Board
 

16 accepts the evidence that I have shown them,
 

17 then I don't see why the Board can't act on
 

18 that evidence.
 

19 DR. WADE: I understand what you're saying.
 

20 You're -- you're proposing that the Board could
 
21 supersede this facility description based upon
 

22 the evidence you've provided.
 

23 DR. MCKEEL: Right. If I was just saying this
 

24 from my belief, that would be one thing. If
 

25 I've shown it to you on the board and --

P. 80 

1 DR. WADE: From my point of view, you've made a
 

2 very compelling argument.
 

3 DR. MCKEEL: Right.
 

4 DR. WADE: The question is, what is the
 

5 authority of the Board --

6 DR. MCKEEL: Right.
 

7 DR. WADE: -- and that's something the Board
 

8 needs to discuss.
 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me ask, is this
 

10 description -- this is not an official
 

11 description that is used for the EEOICPA
 

12 program, is it?
 

13 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, it is, absolutely --

14 DR. ZIEMER: This is the one --

15 DR. MCKEEL: -- that is your --

16 DR. ZIEMER: That's the one.
 

17 DR. MCKEEL: -- that is your King James --

18 DR. ZIEMER: That's the one you're --

19 DR. MCKEEL: -- Bible.
 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- using, Stu?
 

21 DR. MCKEEL: That is your King James Bible.
 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: We refer to that web site, the
 

23 facilities list web site on, you know,
 

24 questions like this. It occurs to me as we sit
 

25 here that --

P. 81
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: Well --

2 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the sites were published in
 

3 a Federal Register notice and there may be
 

4 additional words in the Federal Register notice
 

5 --

6 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we probably --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but I don't know whether
 

8 there are or not.
 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- need to check that. I -- I --

10 I guess as I look at this, I think the door is
 

11 open. Here in this description it already says
 

12 metal magnesium products, and that term is
 

13 pretty broad. It seems to me one could
 

14 interpret that broadly. I'm wondering if NIOSH
 

15 could not even interpret that broadly. Mayb--
16 we might have to get counsel's recommendation
 

17 on that, but it seems to -- it seems to me that
 

18 there's a foot in the door right there.
 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sure we'd have to seek
 

20 counsel's advice on that. I want to add to
 

21 what Stu just said in response to your
 

22 question, that as we encounter these situations
 

23 where we have questions about what the site or
 

24 facility designation means for covered
 

25 exposure, we are obligated to talk and get
 

P. 82
 

1 coordinated with DOE or DOL on that particular
 

2 issue, and we've done that with Dow. And --

3 and what we hear back from them, DOE, is that
 

4 they are basing their designation on the
 

5 contracts that were engaged with this AWE, and
 

6 they say those contracts do not show them --

7 only show to them that uranium is the issue --

8 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh.
 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: -- is the AEC work. Now I'm not
 

10 saying I agree with that. I'm just saying
 

11 that's what bounds us to only move forward and
 

12 work on uranium outside of that covered period.
 

13 DR. ZIEMER: So in -- in a sense, it appears
 

14 that we're awaiting some additional response --

15 I know -- I've seen copies of Dan's -- McKeel's
 

16 letters to Glenn Podonsky and a kind of
 

17 preliminary response that sort of said we're
 

18 looking into it, or something to that effect.
 

19 So I don't think that DOE has closed the door,
 

20 but it certainly will make a big difference if
 

21 we can have them aboard officially on this.
 

22 It's -- it's not obvious to me that they are
 

23 denying that the thorium work took place. I
 

24 think it has come to them probably as new
 

25 information, as well, was my impression. Is
 

P. 83
 

1 that your impression, too, Dan, that --

2 DR. WADE: We're going to try --

3 DR. MCKEEL: You know, I --

4 DR. WADE: -- to get DOE on the phone.
 

5 DR. MCKEEL: -- I would be happy to agree with
 

6 that, except where did they get the language of
 

7 metal magnesium --

8 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- well --

9 DR. MCKEEL: -- they're --
10 DR. ZIEMER: -- exactly, and that's what I'm
 

11 saying, it --

12 DR. MCKEEL: What I'm trying --

13 DR. ZIEMER: -- sort of leaves the door open
 

14 anyway, it seems to me.
 

15 DR. MCKEEL: Here -- here's the key thing that
 

16 I'm trying to say. I -- I actually have -- I
 

17 mean all I have is a copy from an electronic
 

18 file sent by Dow Madi-- Dow Midland, but it is
 

19 -- it -- it names the AEC contract as being the
 

20 same contract, that same ENG* contract that
 

21 Mallinckrodt had for uranium.
 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Right.
 

23 DR. MCKEEL: So --

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I --

25 DR. MCKEEL: -- all I can say is Department of
 

P. 84
 

1 Energy missed something. Now why, how, when --

2 I don't know, but you know, February 23rd is a
 

3 long time --

4 DR. ZIEMER: I understand.
 

5 DR. MCKEEL: -- and that's why we hope -- we
 

6 hope that what you can do is say look, we have
 

7 seen a thorium contract between Dow Midland and
 

8 Mallinckrodt, the AEC, and that's sufficient to
 

9 move forward and believe -- and believe this.
 

10 Yes, it would be wonderful if we could get a
 

11 confirmation from DOE, but I don't know how to
 

12 do that today. I -- I don't think it's
 

13 practical.
 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Well, yeah, we're -- thank you,
 

15 that's very helpful. I -- I think we'll get
 

16 some additional comments here and then we can
 

17 figure out a path forward from this point. I
 

18 think Wanda and then Jim, then Jim. Okay.
 

19 MS. MUNN: A couple of clarifying questions.
 

20 Was the SEC petition -- do we have an SEC
 

21 petition that covers this extended period?
 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: No, the SEC petition was the
 

23 one that we -- it's an 83.14, so we said we
 

24 can't reconstruct the dose and we were, you
 

25 know, working with the belief, you know, the
 

P. 85
 

1 covered -- the covered period '57 to '60, so
 

2 you know, we essentially initiated -- we don't
 

3 have an 83.13 petition that asks for it -- you
 
4 know, the residual inclusion.
 

5 MS. MUNN: So are we not correct in assuming
 

6 that, in the absence of a petition, the only
 

7 avenue that's being asked of us today is to
 

8 extend the existing petition. That's the
 

9 request --

10 DR. ZIEMER: Well, the existing period.
 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the request --

12 MS. MUNN: I mean the existing period.
 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: The request would be that our
 

14 evaluation of in-- you know, inability --

15 infeasibility of doing dose reconstruction
 

16 should be extended into the -- into the
 

17 residual contamination per-- I mean that's the
 

18 request that's being made.
 

19 MS. MUNN: I -- I guess from a simply process
 

20 point of view, it would seem much more
 

21 straightforward if we had an SEC petition that
 

22 covered that residual period. It would -- it
 

23 would --

24 DR. ZIEMER: Well, this -- this can be done in
 

25 a two-step process, but the issue will remain,
 

P. 86
 

1 one way or the other, to -- to address because
 

2 there certainly can be claimants coming forward
 

3 from that period, so -- Dr. Melius.
 

4 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think just to follow up on
 

5 Wanda's question, I think -- we have -- there's
 

6 actually precedent in -- on this Board for
 

7 changing the period, the coverage period in
 

8 relationship to an evaluation report that's
 

9 given to us and changing -- both within NIOSH
 

10 and within the Board for changing that from
 

11 what was in the original petition. So I don't
 

12 think that's problematic. I -- I do think it's
 

13 a bit more problematic the fact that we don't
 

14 have any evaluation be-- of -- of feasibility
 

15 of doing dose -- individual dose reconstruction
 

16 in front of us, at least from NIOSH, for --

17 other than for the time period that they --

18 they addressed in -- in the -- based on the
 

19 original 83.14 petition. So whether or not
 

20 they -- it's possible -- feasible to do dose
 

21 reconstruction before or after, I'm not -- is
 

22 not clear to -- or should say after for either
 

23 uranium or thorium, it's not clear to me.
 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, LaVon, can you --
25 MR. RUTHERFORD: Actually that's not correct.
 

Footnote to self: Earlier Mr. Hinnefeld said that Lavon was on
 

vacation, yet here he is chiming in - ???
 

P. 87
 

1 We've provided sample dose reconstructions for
 

2 the residual period addressing only the
 

3 uranium.
 

4 DR. MELIUS: Only the -- so -- so just -- it's
 

5 just --

6 MR. RUTHERFORD: Yes, but --

7 DR. MELIUS: -- thorium.
 

8 MR. RUTHERFORD: -- we did address the uranium,
 

9 which we -- as Stu had mentioned, assumed was
 

10 the only AEC covered.
 

11 DR. MELIUS: Okay.
 

12 MR. RUTHERFORD: But not thorium.
 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: But to your point, there has
 

14 not been an evaluation of the feasibility after
 

15 the -- in the residual period, that's true.
 

16 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean I -- I would expect
 

17 that uranium would still -- yeah, I would
 

18 expect that uranium would still be feasible. I
 

19 think the thorium is the -- one more question.
 

20 I also have a pro-- procedural question --

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

22 DR. MELIUS: -- is that say if we took the step
 

23 of moving forward and have the Board extending
 

24 the -- the time period of -- of coverage as has
 

25 been suggested, you know, what -- what then
 

P. 88
 

1 happens? I suspect that DOL then would not be
 

2 willing to certify people in that class beyond
 

3 that point. Don't they refer to the DOE
 

4 definition in term-- of the site and the time
 

5 period of coverage in terms of how they handle
 

6 these?
 

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that is correct --

8 DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: -- but it may start sooner than
 

10 that. I don't know if our Secretary would --

11 would say that -- well, I can make this
 

12 designation based upon the Board's
 

13 recommendation, given OGC's interpretation of
 

14 the amendment language.
 

15 DR. WADE: That's where we -- that's where the
 
16 issue would first ra-- if the Board was to
 

17 decide to include the residual contamination
 

18 period because of the inability to reconstruct
 

19 thorium dose --

20 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh.
 

21 DR. WADE: -- then the Secretary of HHS would
 

22 have to evaluate whether or not that was within
 

23 his authorities, given the -- the time period
 

24 that's been covered and the facility
 

25 designation.
 

P. 89
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: But in reality, as far as NIOSH is
 

2 concerned in that extended period, the problem
 

3 then would be the same on reconstructing
 

4 thorium. You would not be able to.
 

5 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we -- we didn't try to --

6 DR. ZIEMER: All right, so (unintelligible) --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- demonstrate feasibility, so
 

8 we haven't really tried, so today we wouldn't -

9 - we wouldn't have that data.
 

10 DR. ZIEMER: You -- okay.
 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Now whether it's -- you know,
 

12 there may be avenues that we didn't pursue
 

13 since we were interested in '57 to '60, but I
 

14 don't -- I don't know if there would be or not.
 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you haven't actually looked
 

16 at the issue.
 

17 Dr. Lockey.
 

18 DR. LOCKEY: I wanted to -- I wanted to ask you
 

19 a question.
 

20 What I'm hearing you say is that it's your
 

21 thought, based on the affidavits, that after
 

22 1960 thorium alloy production persisted at this
 

23 facility. Is that correct?
 

24 DR. MCKEEL: No question about that.
 

25 DR. LOCKEY: And how long -- how long did it go
 

P. 90
 

1 on? Do you have any --

2 DR. MCKEEL: It goes on at least till 1998, and
 

3 there's some evidence from the workers -- for
 

4 example, they say that the PE, the
 

5 photoengraving work -- as you heard, some
 

6 workers say the thorium runs persisted even
 

7 after 1998, but well into the '90s, for sure.
 

8 And I'm talking about production work now.
 

9 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. And then that production
 
10 was on behalf of AEC or non-AEC?
 

11 DR. MCKEEL: Not that we -- no, the only -- the
 

12 only proof that we have of AEC thorium work was
 

13 in the covered period, the 1957 to '60.
 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

15 DR. MCKEEL: And -- and all the subsequent work
 

16 that I'm aware of was done for mili-- 95
 

17 percent of it was military contractors.
 

18 DR. LOCKEY: Okay. Thank you.
 

19 DR. MCKEEL: DoD-type contractors, right.
 

20 DR. LOCKEY: Thank you.
 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Robert.
 

22 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. Lockey, can I put into
 

23 perspective here that on this Dow search --

24 document search that we've -- all went round
 

25 and round on for months now, NIOSH asked Dow
 

P. 91
 

1 for documents under a certain set of criter--

2 for their criteria. The Senator's office asked
 

3 Dow for documents under a -- a different set of
 

4 criteria. Dow sent to us last Friday night at
 

5 midnight 400 documents from Dow Madison, no
 

6 documents from Rocky Flats, despite -- now not
 

7 on Dow, but despite that they had -- their
 

8 general counsel had told us they had thousands
 

9 of boxes related to Rocky Flats. The question
 

10 here is about thorium from Dow Madison to Rocky
 

11 Flats. Dow Madison did a document search.
 

12 They only sent us documents from Dow Madison,
 

13 despite telling us they had documents from
 

14 Rocky Flats. So it's important to keep that in
 

15 mind, I think.
 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Additional
 

17 comments or questions?
 

18 DR. WADE: Could I just sort of summarize three
 

19 issues? The first issue is you have a report
 

20 from NIOSH in front of you that says grant the
 

21 SEC during the covered period, based upon the
 

22 inability to reconstruct thorium dose. Even
 

23 though thorium was part of a commercial
 

24 operation, that dose can be considered during
 

25 the covered period.
 

P. 92
 

1 What's not stated in the recommendation that
 

2 the Board can comment on is NIOSH claims it can
 

3 reconstruct the uranium dose during the -- the
 
4 residual period. That's an issue that's
 

5 legitimate for the Board to consider and
 

6 evaluate.
 

7 And then the 700-pound gorilla is whether or
 

8 not thorium work was AEC work. Now that's an
 

9 issue that the Board can approach in a variety
 

10 of ways, none of them directly, in my opinion.
 

11 So I think those are the three things that you
 

12 have.
 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Wanda Munn.
 

14 MS. MUNN: One question. Is -- is it possible
 

15 for us to get to the FUSRAP report personally?
 

16 Is that on line anywhere?
 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly those are public
 

18 reports. I'm not sure how helpful it will be -

19 -

20 MR. HINNEFELD: You're talking about the FUSRAP
 

21 survey report?
 

22 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I just wanted to have an
 

23 opportunity to see for myself the --

24 MR. HINNEFELD: It's --

25 MS. MUNN: -- referencing itself time and time
 

P. 93
 

1 again.
 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: It's on the O drive.
 

3 MS. MUNN: It's -- okay.
 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: It's in the document review --

5 and there's a Dow folder --

6 MS. MUNN: Okay, if it's on --

7 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and it would be SE-- it's in
 

8 the references for the evaluation report.
 

9 MS. MUNN: Fine, thanks.
 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Another comment?
 

11 DR. WADE: Yes, I'll say it on the record
 

12 rather than trying to whisper it. At the last
 

13 meeting the Board did ask SC&A to become
 

14 familiar with the Dow SEC petition in
 

15 anticipation of some downstream work. So I
 

16 mean it's possible John Mauro might have a
 

17 comment to make.
 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I -- John, this may be too
 

19 early, but go -- if you have comments at this
 

20 time or any input on -- from SC&A.
 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, I could give you a summary of
 

22 what we -- we were given the direction by the
 

23 Board to perform a focused review and -- and we
 

24 did. We reviewed all the documents that were
 
25 in the folder, of course the evaluation report,
 

P. 94
 

1 the petition. The team consisted of myself, a
 

2 metallurgist with expertise in just this very
 

3 subject, and a radiochemist with expertise in
 

4 air sampling of thorium. And in fact we put
 

5 together a working draft, I'm holding it in my
 

6 hand, and -- to look at the issues as we've
 

7 been discussing. None of -- none of these
 

8 legal issues, but just simply the radiation
 

9 protection, health physics, dose reconstruction
 

10 issues. And we have come to certain
 

11 observations in -- that we -- I'd be glad to
 

12 offer. And of course, if so requested, we
 

13 could deliver to you our written report. But
 

14 this maybe constitutes a status report of what
 

15 we found out to date.
 

16 We have not looked at the 700 pages that showed
 

17 up on Saturday, so that's -- so -- we looked at
 

18 everything else before that.
 

19 Bottom line. Uranium, the dose reconstruction
 

20 during the covered period, '57 through '60,
 

21 there is -- we agree with NIOSH that exposures
 

22 to workers who were exposed to the uranium
 

23 during the covered period while it was being
 

24 rolled, extruded, is something that there is
 

25 adequate information to perform dose
 

P. 95
 

1 reconstruction.
 

2 The residual uranium post, we believe that
 

3 there is adequate information to reconstruct
 

4 doses to the uranium.
 

5 Now to move on to thorium, which we also looked
 

6 at, is there sufficient information to
 

7 reconstruct thorium exposures during the
 

8 covered period. From what -- from the data
 

9 that we reviewed, and we looked very carefully
 

10 at this, we -- we believe we have a pretty good
 

11 understanding of the alloying process that took
 

12 place. It was -- the best way to describe it
 

13 is it was a dangerous operation because you're
 

14 working with molten magnesium, and there were
 

15 explosions and fires that occurred, and air
 

16 samples were taken at the time -- there were
 

17 air samples, and we reviewed that data. Bottom
 

18 line is that there was -- un-- under most
 
19 occasions, they did not detect the presence of
 

20 any thorium. Apparently there were some short21
 

lived radionuclides that became airborne and
 

22 that were airborne, but it does not appear that
 

23 the thorium was becoming readily airborne at
 

24 high concentrations at -- because they bo--

25 were below the limits of detection.
 

P. 96
 

1 So we asked our radiochemist to do the best he
 

2 can to figure out what the lower limits of
 

3 detection were at the time, and that was -- and
 

4 we did the best we can to come to grips with
 

5 that. And the bottom line is that, depending
 

6 on what assumptions you make on the type of
 

7 sample that was collected, the duration of the
 

8 sample, the volume of air, the counting time,
 

9 what the lower limit of detection is, so we
 

10 have a range of numbers but they were all low.
 

11 That is, we're talking about concentrations on
 

12 the order of one DAC following -- following
 

13 these events.
 

14 So -- now, that would be thorium that might
 

15 emer-- come off from a -- an event, an
 

16 incident. There's also a question regarding
 

17 other types of activities that took place. Now
 

18 here's where we don't have an answer for you.
 

19 That is, beside those thorium measurements that
 

20 were taken because of concern that there may
 

21 have been some thorium becoming airborne during
 

22 the alloying process and any transients that
 

23 occurred during the alloying process,
 

24 apparently there were lots of other activities
 

25 going on that you may want to refer to as
 

P. 97
 

1 machining thorium or -- or handling in various
 

2 ways. We do have data regarding various --

3 various thorium machining operations and in
 

4 fact we discussed this in the past regarding
 

5 Rocky Flats. So there is a lot of data related
 

6 to what the levels of airborne dust loadings
 

7 are associated with various machining
 

8 operations.
 

9 Now for tho-- now where we don't have
 

10 information is there may have been certain
 

11 unique activities associated with the
 

12 management of the thorium metal, which was
 
13 certainly there, that was different than the
 

14 experience that -- that we have in our records
 

15 -- for example, regarding the machining of --

16 or uranium and thorium that might be different.
 

17 So we're at a place right now that's -- that
 

18 says that from the information we have before
 

19 us, the actual measured values, our
 

20 understanding of the process, it -- it appears
 

21 that the levels of thorium were not very high.
 

22 They were below the limits of detection in
 

23 general. And based on the literature for other
 

24 operations that were reviewed from various
 

25 publications where thorium was machined, for
 

P. 98
 

1 example, it appears that there's a way to place
 

2 a plausible upper bound.
 

3 What we don't know is that -- and we don't have
 

4 an answer to is that there may have been
 

5 certain types of activities related to the
 

6 management, handling, machining of thorium,
 

7 perhaps centering it, that we don't have
 

8 information. So here's where I guess, to a
 

9 degree, we're saying there's an unknown here
 

10 that we did not research in depth, but -- so
 

11 whether or not -- so -- so in a funny sort of
 

12 way, we -- right now we can't say whether or
 

13 not you could place a plausible upper bound on
 

14 the thorium exposures. We -- we did not do
 

15 enough research into it. But from the -- the
 

16 literature that we did look at, it is not
 

17 immediately apparent that there was a serious
 

18 thorium problem, airborne, at the facility
 

19 during the covered period.
 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, John. NIOSH has
 

21 indicated, however, an inability to reconstruct
 

22 dose from thorium, perhaps because of some of
 

23 those unknowns that you've identified, so that
 

24 -- I'm trying to determine whether your bottom
 

25 line is different -- it sounded like you were
 

P. 99
 

1 saying in general there may not have been
 

2 serious thorium problems but you can't really
 

3 pin that down and bound it completely --

4 DR. MAURO: At this time, that's correct,
 

5 especially since we haven't looked at the 700
 

6 pages that came in on Saturday.
 
7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, thank you. Dr.
 

8 McKeel?
 

9 DR. MCKEEL: I just have one directly relevant
 

10 thing. One of the issues about extrusion press
 

11 operation is in some of the other sites that
 

12 I've read about apparently it was -- it's
 

13 fairly standard practice for radioactive
 

14 extrusions -- radioactive metal extrusions to
 

15 put a vacuum hood around the extrusion press
 

16 where the metal extrusions come out and to
 

17 collect it that way so it's completely
 

18 important to know whether extrusion presses
 

19 were or were not hooded, and the ones at Dow
 

20 Madison were not hooded. And I think that John
 

21 -- I mean I think that's something that must be
 

22 clarified, because if you have the vacuum hood
 

23 on there the dust concentrations are going to
 

24 be way low compared to the others.
 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yeah -- yes, Robert.
 

P. 100
 

1 MR. STEPHAN: John, just as a follow-up -- Dr.
 

2 Makhijani, I think you had a conversation with
 

3 Bill Hoppe, one of the Dow workers, but have
 

4 you been able to speak with any of the other
 

5 workers of the -- at least of the 11 who
 

6 testified about the shipments to Rocky Flats?
 

7 Have you spoken to them about thorium?
 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) I have
 

9 (unintelligible).
 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, okay.
 

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just to clarify, I -- I did not
 

12 talk to Bill Hoppe about the conditions of the
 

13 plant. I just talked to him about shipments to
 

14 Rocky Flats and what he told me is part of our
 

15 Rocky Flats report, although the interview was
 

16 not published because of Privacy Act
 

17 considerations.
 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps Bill Hoppe is still on the
 

19 line. Are you, Bill?
 

20 MR. HOPPE: Yes.
 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have any additional
 

22 comments on this?
 

23 MR. HOPPE: Our (unintelligible) in shipping
 

24 from '92 to -- I mean '62 to '75 is almost all
 

25 thorium, Hk and Hm, went to like Rocky Flats,
 
P. 101
 

1 Martin Marietta or Lockheed -- there's others,
 

2 I can't think right now.
 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

4 MR. HOPPE: But every time we put a label on it
 

5 -- a shipping label, it had Department of Labor
 

6 in care of, you know, like Rocky Flats, and we
 

7 shipped a lot of metal to Rocky Flats
 

8 (unintelligible) --

9 DR. ZIEMER: Department of Labor, or do you --

10 did you mean Department of Energy?
 

11 MR. HOPPE: -- (unintelligible) -- Huh?
 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Did you mean the Department of
 

13 Energy or Department of Labor?
 

14 MR. HOPPE: Department of Energy.
 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Energy, okay, yeah, thank you.
 

16 MR. HOPPE: It started out as DoD --

17 MS. MUNN: It would have been AEC.
 

18 MR. HOPPE: -- and then they went to DOE.
 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Right, okay. Thank you.
 

20 MR. HOPPE: Down there. And then --

21 MS. MUNN: But it would have been AEC or --

22 MR. HOPPE: -- Rocky Flats or Martin Marietta.
 

23 Some of it would be (unintelligible) sheets and
 

24 others would be real heavy (unintelligible),
 

25 eight and ten inches, you know.
 

P. 102
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Bill.
 

2 Board members -- okay, com--

3 UNIDENTIFIED: I'd like to make a comment
 

4 myself.
 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Who is this?
 

6 MR. WIEDER: This is Art Wieder. I'd like to
 

7 make a comment.
 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Art. Please go ahead.
 

9 MR. WIEDER: I -- I was a laborer, a painter
 

10 and a brick layer at Dow Madison plant, and I
 

11 was at the press when they was pushing the
 

12 thorium, and some of the thorium, like when it
 

13 was extruded, would come out and -- terrible
 

14 (unintelligible), and they couldn't use that so
 

15 they stored that in 2 building and that thorium
 

16 stayed over there -- 2 building, which our
 

17 paint shop was in 2 building, and it stayed
 

18 over there for years and years and years and we
 

19 worked around it, swept around it and
 

20 everything else and it -- I don't know -- I
 
21 heard just recently that they got it out of
 

22 there.
 

23 DR. WADE: Thank you.
 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you.
 

25 MR. WIEDER: And that's my comment.
 

Footnote: Mr. Wieder is the second litmus case and is the
 

Petitioner of record on 83.14 Dow SEC-00079 that was enacted
 

into law for the covered period 1957-60.
 

P. 103
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Wanda Munn?
 

2 MS. MUNN: Can we assume that the petitioners
 

3 have no problem with our parsing this question,
 

4 because it clearly needs more definition than
 

5 we have now, and moving forward with the
 

6 petition that is before us now, with the
 

7 understanding that we will further pursue an
 

8 additional or extension of this SEC to cover
 

9 additional dates for residual contamination.
 

10 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I would like to say that the
 

11 petitioners have very strong problems with
 

12 that, and the reason why, Wanda, is that in
 

13 February when we had the Dow SEC update, we
 

14 clearly focused our concern on covering the
 

15 residual period based on the 11 affidavits
 

16 which I put on the record then and gave you a
 

17 Powerpoint and gave you ex-- excerpts from the
 

18 -- those sworn affidavits that said exactly
 

19 what you heard from Bill Hoppe right now, that
 

20 truckloads of thorium went to Rocky Flats. And
 

21 so we've always contended from the outset that
 

22 that was a major issue. Robert just read into
 

23 the record again Larry Elliott's statements
 

24 that he was well aware that a special aspect of
 

25 this SEC was coverage of the residual period
 

P. 104
 

1 -- we thought all along that those worker
 

3 affidavits document that Dow Madison was
 

4 supplying thorium to the Atomic Energy
 

5 Commission at Rocky Flats. So now all we're
 

6 doing today is giving you independent,
 

7 additional conclusive evidence that some of the
 

8 thorium work was AEC-related under a contract
 

9 to the AEC, which we produced for you from
 

10 Mallinckrodt. So I don't think this is a new
 

11 issue that we're raising --
12 DR. ZIEMER: No, I don't think --

13 MS. MUNN: No, I don't --

14 DR. ZIEMER: I think that's -- that's correct.
 

15 We're trying to find a way forward that will
 

16 try to address both of these, and -- and one
 

17 possibility would be to take action on the
 

18 immediate petition, and then take an additional
 

19 action, perhaps to ask the Secretary to take
 

20 what steps are needed within his purview to
 

21 help move this definition forward in some way.
 

22 What -- I think what we're trying to avoid is
 

23 sabotaging the whole thing by providing a
 

24 recommendation that can't be well implemented,
 

25 so -- Robert, you have some additional comments
 

P. 105
 

1 on that?
 

2 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. Ziemer, can -- can we
 

3 condense down and maybe, you know, put in a --

4 I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a scientist. You
 

5 know, I've heard the questions, but I haven't
 

6 heard the answer as to why we -- we could not
 

7 act on this residual period today. I mean I
 

8 respect what you're charged with in terms of
 

9 advising the Secretary and what you're -- what
 

10 you're trying to accomplish and -- and
 

11 certainly if we he-- if we hear an answer that
 

12 precludes you --

13 DR. ZIEMER: Well, our con --

14 MR. STEPHAN: -- from doing it, but --

15 DR. ZIEMER: -- our concern --

16 MR. STEPHAN: -- we haven't heard it.
 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Our concern is implementing -- if
 

18 the Board were to recommend that, the
 

19 implementation goes back to Department of
 

20 Labor, and -- and the change has to occur there
 

21 in order for it to work. My -- the concern I
 

22 just expressed was I don't want to sabotage the
 

23 whole thing by having something that won't work
 

24 that perhaps we can parse it in a way that says
 

25 let's deal with the immediate petition and then
 

P. 106
 

1 ask the Secretary -- and we can -- we can go on
 

2 record as indicating the -- the Board's
 

3 understanding of -- of -- or we could go on
 

4 record as recommending that this period be
 

5 extended and ask that the steps be taken so
 
6 that it opens the way for the -- for it to
 

7 happen. So I think that's what Wanda was
 

8 getting at, to parse it out in a -- and we can
 

9 do both steps here today, I think.
 

10 MS. MUNN: Exactly, and the second part of that
 

11 would be also to further accommodate the
 

12 process by -- by clarifying the definition from
 

13 which the original concern -- as to what this
 

14 facility was, and -- and identifying whether
 

15 the word "products" in there adequately covers
 

16 what we need.
 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think -- I think Dr. 

18 McKeel's made a compelling case to the Board 

19 for why it should be. Our -- our focus now is 

20 how can we accomplish this in a way that meets
 

21 legal requirements and does not impede the
 

22 whole thing.
 

23 MR. STEPHAN: Dr. Ziemer, just to clarify for
 

24 Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Wieder, so on -- on your
 

25 point, which I -- Deb and Dr. McKeel and I have
 

P. 107
 

1 just been discussing, we -- we think we
 

2 understand it correctly. We agree, but I want
 

3 to be careful not to speak for them in case I'm
 

4 wrong. But Mr. Hoppe and Mr. Wieder, what --

5 what we're talking about here is if we lump in
 

6 the residual period, because Mr. Hoppe is not
 

7 covered under the current -- if we lump in the
 

8 residual period with the current wording and
 

9 the Secretary decides that doesn't work, then
 

10 we lose --

11 DR. ZIEMER: We lose time, right.
 

12 MR. STEPHAN: -- the 47 -- we lose the 47
 

13 workers who are going to be covered under the
 

14 83.14 and we have to start that process all
 

15 over again. So we would be comfortable with --

16 I think what you're moving toward is the 83.14
 

17 --

18 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we're trying to find an
 

19 expeditious way to --

20 MR. STEPHAN: -- 83.14 today and I guess what
 

21 you're saying -- an advisory opinion separately
 

22 on the residual, we would be comfortable with
 

23 that.
 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- to see -- to find a way to --

25 to get that definition changed so that Labor
 
P. 108
 

1 and -- and DOE actually will implement what we
 

2 want done.
 

3 MR. STEPHAN: Right, we -- we agree.
 

4 DR. ZIEMER: I'm -- I'm -- I say what we want
 

5 done. We haven't taken any action yet so I
 

6 don't want to -- and Liz, if you can add
 

7 something from counsel here.
 

8 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm not sure I can add
 

9 something, I just want to clarify that it's not
 

10 100 percent correct that just because -- if
 

11 they were to agree to clump the whole thing
 

12 together, the Secretary doesn't necessarily
 

13 have to accept the recommendation of the Board.
 

14 The Secretary could still parse it and say I'm
 

15 adding this portion and not this portion, so
 

16 it's not necessarily going to completely
 

17 eliminate the 83.14 portion just because --

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it may -- it may set that
 

19 aside anyway if he doesn't feel that that's in
 

20 the --

21 DR. WADE: I think Jim has --

22 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Robert.
 

23 MR. STEPHAN: Well, in light of that, then --

24 then our position would change and our position
 

25 would be let's lump it together, let's put this
 

P. 109
 

1 in Labor's court -- who didn't bother to show
 

2 up today -- and let -- let's see what we could
 

3 do. If we're not going to lose the 83.14 and
 

4 the Secretary can parse that out, then -- then
 

5 we would encourage the Board to lump it
 

6 together and see where we go.
 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure if -- Liz, is that
 

8 what you were saying?
 

9 DR. WADE: I don't think we know that, and I
 

10 don't think we want to make that judgment.
 

11 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I can't say what the
 

12 Secretary would do. I'm just telling you
 

13 legally what his options would be.
 

14 DR. WADE: Right.
 

15 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: My recommendation would be
 

16 that you give him the most direct guidance of
 

17 what you want done.
 

18 DR. WADE: Correct.
 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.
 

20 DR. WADE: Jim has --
21 DR. ZIEMER: Jim.
 

22 DR. MELIUS: Can I just add -- I think there's
 

23 another important reason to split this up, and
 

24 that is the fact that we don't have before us
 

25 information indicating that for the residual
 

P. 110
 

1 period that this group qualifies technically as
 

2 an SEC. There's no -- NIOSH --

3 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have an evaluation report
 

4 --

5 DR. MELIUS: -- NIOSH has not examined it, nor
 

6 has SC&A, as to whether or not it's feasible to
 

7 do dose reconstruction for that -- that time
 

8 period. They've already made a ruling on the
 

9 uranium finding, but they have not -- neither
 

10 one of them has looked at the thorium issue.
 

11 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I would just like to -- I --

12 I -- I -- Jim, I -- with Dr. Melius, I
 

13 certainly agree with what he says, but I would
 

14 further add in the strongest possible way that
 

15 we begged, we implored, we brought this issue
 

16 up to NIOSH, and in fact I was quite shocked
 

17 and dismayed when I saw the evaluation report
 

18 on April the 13th and realized that after all
 

19 our discussions there was not a more in-depth
 

20 focused attempt to work out whether dose
 

21 reconstruction was feasible during the residual
 

22 period. I thought Larry and I honestly had a
 

23 bargain about that and that would be
 

24 forthcoming. And so when I wrote back my
 

25 concerns about that evaluation report, that was
 

P. 111
 

1 well represented in the list of concerns, why
 

2 didn't you address this in a more comprehensive
 

3 way. So given the fact that what we have
 

4 today, I absolutely agree that residual period
 

5 feasibility needs to be assessed, but I wish it
 

6 had been done --

7 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we understand.
 

8 DR. MCKEEL: -- in a more timely way.
 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you.
 

10 DR. MELIUS: And can I just add -- I mean I
 

11 completely agree with you on that, and I was
 

12 concerned also and I think to some extent the
 

13 Board should have tried to follow up more
 

14 vigorously to -- to try to address that, but we
 
15 weren't -- we weren't aware of all that was
 

16 going on, but -- but despite that, we're still
 

17 stuck with -- that delay, we're still stuck
 

18 without the necessary information and to put
 

19 forward a recommendation that's -- doesn't have
 

20 adequate justification would just be another,
 

21 you know, potential avenue to delay this or for
 

22 the Secretary to send that -- that back and --

23 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, 'cause the Secretary wouldn't
 

24 have the full set of tools he requires then.
 

25 DR. MELIUS: And -- and I would add, I think,
 

P. 111
 

1 as part of our way of moving forward, that we
 

2 need to ask NI-- you know, NIOSH to -- in a
 

3 very timely fashion to address that deficit and
 

4 -- deficiency and provide us with information.
 

5 I think we should also ask SC&A to -- in
 

6 parallel to -- to also get involved in -- and
 

7 look at that residual period also and the
 

8 question of dose reconstruction, and I would
 

9 much prefer that we not have another informal
 

10 presentation from SC&A, which I found to be
 

11 extremely confusing and disturbing, but that we
 

12 -- we actually have a formal report and a
 

13 formal presentation at our next meeting about
 

14 this.
 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. In -- in order
 

16 to move things forward, I think it would be
 

17 appropriate if the Chair now called on -- if
 

18 anyone wished to make a motion on the report
 

19 that we have before us, which is the evaluation
 

20 report on the petition.
 

21 Okay, we've got Wanda and Jim both vying for --

22 MS. MUNN: Well, go ahead, Jim.
 

23 DR. MELIUS: Well, my only question -- it's
 

24 sort of the prerogative of the Board, I have
 

25 actually prepared a letter which I can read.
 

P. 112
 

1 It's not been copied yet 'cause I've been
 

2 working on it --

3 DR. ZIEMER: Please read your letter.
 

4 DR. MELIUS: -- during the presentation, so
 

5 bear with me. If the computer works, we'll --

6 that deals with this first section and might
 

7 facilitate us moving forward.
 

8 DR. ZIEMER: This is a motion that is actually
 
9 in the form of our usual motions then.
 

10 DR. MELIUS: Yes, yes.
 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.
 

12 DR. MELIUS: And I will start reading. The
 

13 Board recommends that the following letter be
 

14 transmitted to the Secretary of Health and
 

15 Human Services within 21 days so that should
 

16 the Chair become of any issue which, in his
 

17 judgment, would preclude the transmittal of
 

18 this letter within that time period, the Board
 

19 requests that he promptly informs the Board of
 

20 the delay and the reasons for this delay, that
 

21 he immediately works with NIOSH to schedule
 

22 emergency meeting of the Board to discuss this
 

23 issue.
 

24 The letter. The Advisory Board on Radiation
 

25 and Worker Health, parentheses, the Board, has
 

P. 114
 

1 evaluated SEC petition 0079 concerning workers
 

2 at the Madison, Illinois -- let me -- at the
 

3 Dow Chemical Company Madison, Illinois facility
 

4 under the statutory requirements established by
 

5 EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR Section
 

6 83.13 and 42 CFR Section 83.14. The Board
 

7 respectfully recommends a Special Exposure
 

8 Cohort, parentheses, SEC, close parentheses, be
 

9 accorded to all AWE employees who were
 

10 monitored, or should have been monitored, for
 

11 exposure to thorium radionuclides while working
 

12 at the Dow Chemical Company Madison site for a
 

13 number of work days aggregating at least 250
 

14 work days during the period from January 1st,
 

15 1957 through December 31st, 1960, or in
 

16 combination with work days within the
 

17 parameters established for one or more other
 

18 classes of employees in the SEC. The Board
 

19 notes that although NIOSH found that they were
 

20 unable to completely reconstruction radiation
 

21 doses for these employees, they believe that
 

22 they are able to reconstruct components of the
 

23 internal dose, including uranium; external
 

24 exposures from radi-- all radionuclides except
 

25 thorium, and occupational medical doses for
 

P. 115
 

1 this class of workers and therefore individuals
 

2 with non-presumptive cancers may be considered
 
3 for partial dose reconstructions. This
 

4 recommendation is based on the following
 

5 factors:
 

6 Number one, people working at the Dow Chemical
 

7 Company Madison site were involved in various
 

8 industrial operations involving uranium and
 

9 thorium. The NIOSH review of the available
 

10 monitoring data found that there was -- there
 

11 were not sufficient data available to estimate
 

12 the internal and external doses from exposure
 

13 to thorium. Therefore, NIOSH concluded that
 

14 individual dose reconstructions are not
 

15 feasible for working -- for people working in
 

16 this facility during the time period in
 

17 question. The Board concurs with this
 

18 conclusion.
 

19 Number three, NIOSH determined that health may
 

20 have been endangered for workers at the Dow
 

21 Chemical Company Madison site during the time
 

22 period in question. The Board concurs with
 

23 this determination.
 

24 Enclosed is supporting documentation from the
 

25 recent Advisory Board meeting held in Denver,
 

Footnote: Melius motion 1 for the covered period 1957-60
 

P. 116
 

1 Colorado where this Special Exposure Cohort was
 

2 discussed. If any of these items are
 

3 unavailable at this time, they will follow
 

4 shortly.
 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is there a second to the
 

6 motion?
 

7 MS. MUNN: (Indicating)
 

8 MR. CLAWSON: Second.
 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we've got several seconds.
 

10 Is there any discussion?
 

11 Yes, Mark.
 

12 MR. GRIFFON: I just want -- I don't know if
 

13 Stu is still around, but I -- I think we need
 

14 to maybe for the record understand a little
 

15 more of -- of why -- and I know NIOSH concluded
 

16 they couldn't reconstruct thorium dose. I just
 

17 want to know specifically there's -- is it
 

18 extent of operations -- I -- I want some
 

19 reasoning -- rationale for why it's -- can't be
 

20 bounded.
 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, he -- Stu did step out, but
 
22 I'll try to do some justice to this question,
 

23 and if he steps back in he can -- seek more
 

24 from him. I believe Stu would say to you that
 

25 -- that we feel that the thorium process
 

P. 117
 

1 operations were so diverse, they included a lot
 

2 of different types of processing work and
 

3 handling the -- the thorium-based materials and
 

4 the alloys that were -- were created. There
 

5 were -- there were chemistry proc-- related
 

6 processes involved. It went beyond just --

7 just extruding metal or manipulating the metal
 

8 itself, physically manipulating the metal. The
 

9 data that we do have for thorium does not give
 

10 us enough information about the -- the
 

11 distribution of exposures from these various
 

12 diverse activities. We can't be sure what type
 

13 of internal dose could have been acquired in
 

14 interacting with the diverse operations. There
 

15 may be enough that we can look at external
 

16 dose, but we haven't really, you know, sorted
 

17 all of that out yet, so add on internal dose to
 

18 thorium as an issue. But he can elaborate more
 

19 if you want more.
 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe Jim can also step on that
 

21 then.
 

22 DR. NETON: Yeah, I think there's a couple of
 

23 other areas more specifically that -- that we
 

24 were looking at. One of those is the -- and
 

25 John I think did a pretty good job describing
 

P. 118
 

1 how the chemistry of making mag--

2 thorium/magnesium alloy occurs, and we think
 

3 those operations are fairly well covered, to a
 

4 large extent, although Stu did mention the
 

5 ventilations in the plant and stuff could vary.
 

6 But there were also some indications that there
 

7 were operations where the material congealed in
 

8 the bottom of these vats and they were chipping
 

9 away at these materials to remove them out of
 

10 the vats, so this is a lot of thorium activity
 

11 there, as well as some indication there may
 

12 have been a -- fires that occurred when they
 

13 were dumping in the thorium into the vats
 

14 themselves. And in addition there's a thorium
 

15 source term -- thoron source term associated
 
16 with this of an indeterminate amount because of
 

17 the degree of in-growth of -- of the -- of the
 

18 daughter products from the thorium material
 

19 that they received. And I think -- to my
 

20 knowledge, there's only one thoron air sample
 

21 available for this plant, so that -- that
 

22 exposure pathway is -- is not able to be
 

23 reconstructed with sufficient accuracy, as
 

24 well.
 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

P. 119
 

1 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Jim. That's what I --

2 DR. MCKEEL: Can I --

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes.
 

4 DR. MCKEEL: I just want one brief comment --

5 DR. ZIEMER: You bet.
 

6 DR. MCKEEL: -- on the record. This -- this is
 

7 very important. Ev-- everybody at NIOSH is now
 

8 talking -- and we're bantering back and forth
 

9 all the monitoring data that they have, and I
 

10 just wanted to put on the record that I have
 

11 not been given a single datapoint from that
 

12 plant at all, and we've asked for it
 

13 repeatedly. And the -- the -- the two
 

14 documents we're talking about, the Silverstein
 

15 '57 and the AEC '60, I've asked for those
 

16 documents, too, and I think there's a fairness
 

17 principle that the petitioner is supposed to be
 

18 afforded the documents that NIOSH has, and I
 

19 haven't gotten -- I have not seen that at all.
 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

21 DR. MCKEEL: So I can't even react to this --

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

23 DR. MCKEEL: -- in any way.
 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Let's make sure -- certainly the
 

25 petitioner's entitled to that information. I'm
 

P. 120
 

1 not sure why we -- will someone follow up on
 

2 that?
 

3 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I can -- I can tell you that
 

4 I asked for all of that data on April the 16th
 

5 in a letter to Larry Elliott, and it just
 

6 hadn't been produced so I'd -- I'd appreciate
 

7 getting that.
 

8 DR. WADE: We'll follow up.
 

9 DR. ZIEMER: We'll follow up. Yeah, thank you.
 
10 I'm just noticing something in our wording --

11 in our boilerplate wording which we have been
 

12 using where we say we are recommending a
 

13 Special Exposure Cohort for these individuals.
 

14 Now actually, technically, there is one Special
 

15 Exposure Cohort, and all of these groups become
 

16 mem-- classes of the cohort. This is not a new
 

17 SEC. I think our wording, Jim -- and this
 

18 would be a friendly amendment -- would be to --

19 we might say recommend Special Exposure Cohort
 

20 status or something like that, but we are not
 

21 recommending a new Special Exposure Cohort.
 

22 There is only one Special Exposure Cohort and
 

23 all the groups become mem-- classes in the
 

24 cohort. So would -- without objection, can we
 

25 modify that a little bit so that it --

P. 121
 

1 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, that's fine.
 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- it's technically correct.
 

3 We've been using this language right along and
 

4 I suddenly realized it probably -- it -- the
 

5 Secretary is able to understand what we really
 

6 mean and give the right language to Congress,
 

7 but perhaps we can modify that.
 

8 Any discussion on this motion?
 

9 (No responses)
 

10 Are you ready to vote?
 

11 (No responses)
 

12 Okay. All in favor of the motion, raise your
 

13 right hand.
 

14 (Affirmative responses)
 

15 And there appear to be no noes and no
 

16 abstentions. The motion carries.
 

17 DR. WADE: The motion -- yeah, the motion
 

18 carries unanimously.
 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. It would be
 

20 appropriate to have a follow-up motion dealing
 

21 with the issue of the extension of time. Jim,
 

22 are you prepared to make a motion or -- because
 

23 what I was going to say, we may need some
 

24 wordsmithing and if so we can move ahead and
 

25 then return to this, but...
 

P. 122
 

1 DR. MELIUS: Depends on -- whatever people --

2 let me wri-- let's come back to it. That may
 

3 be better.
 
4 DR. ZIEMER: What I'm going to suggest is that
 

5 -- in -- in fact, let me ask if -- I'll do this
 

6 in a general way. Does the Board wish to have
 

7 a motion where we can deal with the issue of
 

8 extending the covered period? Is there general
 

9 agreement that we would like to have such a
 

10 motion; and if so, it would include some
 

11 tasking issues related to that.
 

12 Wanda, a comment?
 

13 MS. MUNN: Very much in favor of having such a
 

14 motion.
 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I -- it seems to be --

16 MS. MUNN: The wording of it seems to be
 

17 critical and probably will take more than five
 

18 minutes to do. Perhaps we could take a 20-

19 minute break and give Dr. Melius some --

20 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, I was hoping we would
 

21 plow ahead without breaks and people would take
 

22 them as needed, but we may need to -- we may
 

23 need to do that. Maybe a ten-minute comfort
 

24 break, but we need a couple of people to
 

25 develop some wording. Let me -- who's going to
 

P. 123
 

1 volunteer --

2 DR. MELIUS: I'll develop some.
 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Jim -- and Wanda can -- will help
 

4 you, if needed. She's a word expert. But
 

5 let's make sure we cover requesting the
 

6 Secretary to do some things on behalf of -- or
 

7 -- think about the Secretary's involvement, if
 

8 we wish to make it a recommendation to the
 

9 Secretary, and then whatever tasking we need
 

10 for our contractors and whatever we request --

11 DR. WADE: And NIOSH.
 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- NIOSH to do so that we can be
 

13 prepared to take action. And so we'd have two
 

14 things going on. One would be the change of
 

15 the -- the definition of the covered period,
 

16 and the other would be the evaluation of
 

17 whether dose can be reconstructed during that
 

18 period.
 

19 DR. WADE: Right. I need to say for the record
 

20 that if the Board tasks NIOSH and SC&A to
 

21 evaluate the question of whether thorium dose
 

22 can be reconstructed during the residual
 

23 period, that you're asking them to -- to
 

24 evaluate a hypothetical at this point because
 
25 at this point thorium dose during the residual
 

P. 124
 

1 period is not on the table. If our other
 

2 actions are successful, then that issue could
 

3 be on the table. And I don't want to create a
 

4 situation where NIOSH could come back and say
 

5 we cannot reconstruct thorium dose, and then
 

6 the assumption be made that that immediately
 

7 would qualify for an SEC. We have to deal with
 

8 the issue of whether thorium dose is legitimate
 

9 to consider during the residual contamination
 

10 period.
 

11 DR. MELIUS: Yes, but --

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

13 DR. MELIUS: Can I just clarify? I mean I also
 

14 think we need a -- need to make sure this is
 

15 done in an expeditious manner, and -- and I
 

16 think that's the -- I think it's understood
 

17 that there are -- it's hypothetical, to some
 

18 extent, but at the same time I don't think we
 

19 want to have a sequential series of meetings to
 

20 address this.
 

21 DR. WADE: I agree completely.
 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So let's go ahead and take
 

23 as brief a break as we can, ten-minute break --

24 comfort break, and we'll go from there. Thank
 

25 you.
 

P. 125
 

1 DR. WADE: Come back to Chapman Valve.
 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And then we'll come back to
 

3 Chapman Valve, as well.
 

4 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:43 a.m.
 

5 to 11:00 a.m.)
 

CHAPMAN VALVE SEC PETITION
 

DR. GEN ROESSLER, WORK GROUP CHAIR
 

PETITIONER (pages 125 through 157)
 

P. 157
 

1 ROCKY FLATS MOTION (Pages 157-___)
 

2 I'd like to have Board members pull out the
 

3 written copy of the Rocky Flats draft, the
 

4 official motion.
 

P. 194 

1 (No responses)

2 Abstentions? 

3 (No responses) 
4 Motion carries. Thank you.
 

BOARD WORK ON DR. MELIUS’ 2ND DOW SEC MOTION CONTINUES... 

Pages 194 through 199 

P. 194...
 

5 DR. WADE: Hurry back, Phillip. Now we do have
 

6 issues on Dow.
 

7 DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Do we have anything in writing on
 

9 Dow at this --

10 DR. MELIUS: No.
 

11 DR. ZIEMER: No, okay. Go ahead.
 

12 DR. MELIUS: We -- we've already -- we approved
 

13 verbally a letter --

14 DR. ZIEMER: Right.
 

15 DR. MELIUS: -- that -- that I read. I have
 

16 something that -- on my screen that Wanda has
 

17 worked with me to edit --

18 DR. ZIEMER: Okay.
 

19 DR. MELIUS: -- and approve.
 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, if you would; read it to
 

21 us.
 

22 DR. MELIUS: Okay, okay. Dow Madison
 

23 recommendations. The Board authorizes our
 

24 Chair to write a letter to the Secretary of
 

25 Health and Human Services asking him to work
 

P. 195
 

1 with the Secretaries of Energy and Labor --

2 address the issue of EEOICPA coverage for
 

3 workers at the Dow Chemical Company Madison
 

4 site during the period from 1961 through 1998.
 

5 The Board has recently received information
 

6 indicating people working at this facility may
 

7 be eligible beyond the current covered period.
 

8 This new information on -- this new information
 

9 included information on continued exposures to
 

10 thorium in this time period. Extension of the
 

11 covered period is necessary for the Board to be
 

12 able to consider Special Exposure status for
 

13 this group of workers.
 

14 The Board also requests that NIOSH extend its
 

15 evaluation of the Dow Madison site to evaluate
 

16 the ability -- its -- the ability to conduct
 

17 individual dose reconstructions for the time
 

18 period from 1961 to 1998. Board also requests
 

19 that SC&A evaluate the ability to conduct
 

20 individual dose reconstructions for this time
 
21 period. The Board requests that both NIOSH and
 

22 SCA provide these updates at our next meeting.
 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let me get this on the
 

24 floor first. Is there a second?
 

25 MS. MUNN: Second.
 

P. 196
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded. Now it's on the floor.
 

2 Yes?
 

3 MR. STEPHAN: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. We would
 

4 just ask that we -- we clarify that the task to
 

5 SC&A includes speaking to the -- at least the
 

6 11 Dow workers -- I mean this is the crux of
 

7 the argument -- who have testified to the
 

8 thorium shipments. Ju-- ju-- just a document
 

9 review without speaking to the workers, you
 

10 know, we feel is relatively useless, so we just
 

11 want to make sure that SC&A is clear that --

12 that that is part of their purview and what
 

13 you're tasking them with on this.
 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Generally we don't get to
 

15 that level of specificity in the -- in the
 

16 tasking. We allow a fair amount of
 

17 flexibility, but they've heard your point.
 

18 That certainly is open to them in -- generally
 

19 we wouldn't mandate, for example, speak to
 

20 these 11 people. But --

21 MR. STEPHAN: That's clear to you.
 

22 DR. MELIUS: Yeah.
 

23 MS. MUNN: No.
 

24 DR. WADE: Okay.
 

25 MR. STEPHAN: We're clear. Thank you.
 

McKeel footnote: There was never any follow-up by NIOSH or the
 

Board on Mr. Stephan’s request to interview the 11 Dow workers
 

to my knowledge. Dan McKeel 2/11/2011
 

P. 197
 

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we're -- we're fine. Any
 

2 comments or -- or questions? And if we can do
 

3 anything to -- and -- and Dan, I'm wil-- quite
 

4 willing to have you help me on this, if we --

5 'cause I'll prepare the letter and I'll
 

6 probably copy you on it before I send it in,
 

7 but I want to make sure that in making this
 

8 case to the Secretary that we make him
 

9 cognizant of the -- the documents that -- that
 

10 seem to indicate the eligibility, so --
11 DR. MCKEEL: I -- I guess that was my comment.
 

12 Unless the words "AEC thorium" are added into
 

13 Jim's letter, as I heard it just now, I don't
 

14 think the Secretary is going to be persuaded.
 

15 I mean -- so I think that language -- I -- I --

16 we need to provide the documents, for sure.
 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Well, without the --

18 DR. MCKEEL: We need to provide some kind of
 

19 rationale.
 

20 DR. ZIEMER: I think if the Board's in
 

21 agreement, we will ask that we get Dan's
 

22 assistance on getting some wording into that.
 

23 Is that --

24 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean Wan-- Wanda and I
 

25 specifically added the mention of thorium to be
 

P. 198
 

1 able to make sure we captured those documents
 

2 and --

3 DR. MCKEEL: I'd be happy to --

4 DR. MELIUS: -- yeah, I mean --

5 DR. MCKEEL: -- happy to do that.
 

6 DR. MELIUS: -- that was the intent.
 

7 DR. ZIEMER: But Dan, I will -- I will send you
 

8 a draft and --

9 DR. MCKEEL: That'd be great.
 

10 DR. ZIEMER: -- as you to --

11 DR. MCKEEL: That'd be terrific, yeah.
 

12 DR. WADE: Just for the record, I don't think
 

13 there's any question in anyone's mind that
 

14 thorium was on the property. The question is
 

15 was it AEC thorium.
 

16 MS. MUNN: Yes. Yes.
 

17 DR. WADE: That's the issue.
 

18 DR. ZIEMER: And we want to refer to those
 

19 documents, if necessary, to -- to make that
 

20 case.
 

21 Okay, you ready to vote, Board members?
 

22 Okay, Dan, an additional comment?
 

23 DR. MCKEEL: No, I -- I just want to make it
 

24 simpler for everybody. I mean the -- the
 

25 documents that I showed -- here is the
 

P. 199
 

1 Powerpoint -- a printout of each slide in the
 

2 Powerpoint in what I gave you, so that -- that
 

3 -- that's all I'm going to have for those
 

4 documents.
 
5 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, understood.
 

6 DR. MCKEEL: But --

7 DR. WADE: Thank you.
 

8 DR. MCKEEL: Yeah.
 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, thank you.
 

10 All in favor of this motion, say aye?
 

11 (Affirmative responses)
 

12 And all opposed?
 

13 (No responses)
 

14 And abstentions?
 

15 (No responses)
 

16 Motion carries.
 

17 DR. WADE: Unanimously by those present. We
 

18 should take a deep breath. Is there any other
 

19 business that we --

20 DR. ZIEMER: We have Sandia yet.
 

--Discussion of Dow SEC Petition concludes--